Ebooks File Waste Containment Facilities Guidance For Construction Quality Assurance and Construction Quality Control of Liner and Cover Systems 2nd Ed Edition Daniel All Chapters

Full download ebook at ebookname.
com
Waste containment facilities guidance for

construction quality assurance and construction
quality control of liner and cover systems 2nd ed
Edition Daniel
https://ebookname.com/product/waste-containment-facilities-
guidance-for-construction-quality-assurance-and-
construction-quality-control-of-liner-and-cover-systems-2nd-
ed-edition-daniel/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Process Plant Construction A Handbook for Quality

Management 1st Edition Patrick Noble
https://ebookname.com/product/process-plant-construction-a-
handbook-for-quality-management-1st-edition-patrick-noble/
Quality Management in Construction Projects 1st Edition

Abdul Razzak Rumane
https://ebookname.com/product/quality-management-in-construction-
projects-1st-edition-abdul-razzak-rumane/
Computer systems validation quality assurance risk

management and regulatory compliance for pharmaceutical
and healthcare companies 1st Edition Guy Wingate
https://ebookname.com/product/computer-systems-validation-
quality-assurance-risk-management-and-regulatory-compliance-for-
pharmaceutical-and-healthcare-companies-1st-edition-guy-wingate/
Construction management 4th ed Edition Daniel W Halpin
https://ebookname.com/product/construction-management-4th-ed-
edition-daniel-w-halpin/
Kitchen Bath Residential Construction and Systems 2nd
Edition Nkba
https://ebookname.com/product/kitchen-bath-residential-
construction-and-systems-2nd-edition-nkba/
Software Testing and Quality Assurance Theory and

Practice 1st Edition Sagar Naik
https://ebookname.com/product/software-testing-and-quality-
assurance-theory-and-practice-1st-edition-sagar-naik/
Software Quality Assurance SOPs for Healthcare

Manufacturers Second Edition Steven R. Mallory
https://ebookname.com/product/software-quality-assurance-sops-
for-healthcare-manufacturers-second-edition-steven-r-mallory/
Total quality assurance for the food industries 3rd

Edition Wilbur A. Gould
https://ebookname.com/product/total-quality-assurance-for-the-
food-industries-3rd-edition-wilbur-a-gould/
Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Hospital

and Health Care Facilities 2001st Edition Facility
Guidelines Institute
https://ebookname.com/product/guidelines-for-the-design-and-
construction-of-hospital-and-health-care-facilities-2001st-
edition-facility-guidelines-institute/
Waste Containment
Facilities
Other Titles of Interest
Animal Waste Containment in Lagoons (ASCE Manual of Practice).

Comprehensive review of the state-of-the-practice for animal waste containment
and directions for future research. (ISBN 0-7844-0716-9)
Concrete Watertight Structures and Hazardous Liquid Containment, by Robert

Hengst (ASCE Press). A practical guide for engineers who design concrete water-
tight structures and hazardous liquid containment. (ISBN 0-87262-791-8)
Dam Foundation Grouting, Revised and Expanded Edition, by Kenneth D. Weaver

and Donald A. Bruce (ASCE Press). Overview and critical review of current grouting
practices, including design, effectiveness, equipment, and geologic considerations.
(ISBN 0-7844-0764-9)
Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and Abandoned Dumps, by Robert M.
Koerner and David E. Daniel (ASCE Press). Essential elements for designing final
covers for solid waste landfills and abandoned dumps. (ISBN 0-7844-0261-2)
Groundwater and Soil Remediation, by Marve Hyman and R. Ryan Dupont (ASCE
Press). Design details and remediation techniques with an emphasis on the inte-
gration of remediation technologies into a process design scheme. (ISBN 0-7844-
0427-5)
Karl Terzaghi: The Engineer as Artist, by Richard E. Goodman (ASCE Press).

Biographical account of the friendships, conflicts, and enormous successes of the
man who laid the groundwork for soil mechanics. (ISBN 0-7844-0364-3)
Remediation in Rock Masses, edited by Hilary I. Inyang and Clifford J. Bruell

(ASCE Press). Theory, case studies, and recommendations by prominent practition-
ers regarding the complicated issues in the remediation of contaminated rock sites.
(ISBN 0-7844-0015-6)
Waste Containment
Facilities
Guidance for Construction Quality Assurance
and Construction Quality Control
of Liner and Cover Systems
Second Edition
David E. Daniel, Ph.D., P.E.

Robert M. Koerner, Ph.D., P.E.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Daniel, David E. (David Edwin), 1949–

Waste containment facilities: guidance for construction quality assurance and
construction quality control of liner and cover systems / David E. Daniel and Robert M. Koerner.—
2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-7844-0859-9 (alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-7844-0859-9 (alk. paper)
1. Waste disposal sites—Design and construction—Quality control. 2. Quality
assurance. I. Koerner, Robert M., 1933– II. Title.
TD793.D36 2007
628.4⬘456—dc22 2006026845
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191
www.pubs.asce.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not nec-
essarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No
reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or
implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for gen-
eral information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference
in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document.
ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning
the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process dis-
cussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. This information should not be used with-
out first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application.
Anyone utilizing this information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited
to infringement of any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Photocopies and reprints. You can obtain instant permission to photocopy ASCE publications by
using ASCE’s online permission service (www.pubs.asce.org/authors/RightslinkWelcomePage.htm).
Requests for 100 copies or more should be submitted to the Reprints Department, Publications
Division, ASCE (address above); email: [email protected]. A reprint order form can be found at
www.pubs.asce.org/authors/reprints.html.
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 13: 978-0-7844-0859-9
ISBN 10: 0-7844-0859-9
Manufactured in the United States of America.
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter 1. Introduction to Waste Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 A Generalized Waste-Containment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Natural Soil Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.6 Geosynthetic Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.7 Geosynthetic Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.8 Other Components of Waste Containment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.9 Importance of CQC/CQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.10 Cost of CQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Chapter 2. Manufacturing Quality Assurance (MQA) and Construction

Quality Assurance (CQA) Concepts and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Responsibility and Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Personnel Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.4 Written MQA/CQA Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.6 Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.7 Sample Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.8 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.9 Work Stoppages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chapter 3. Compacted Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.2 Critical Construction Variables That Affect Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3 Field Measurement of Water Content and Dry Unit Weight . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.4 Recommended Procedure for Developing Water Content–Density
Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.5 Inspection of Borrow Sources before Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.6 Inspection during Excavation of Borrow Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.7 Preprocessing of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
v
vi CONTENTS
3.8 Placement of Loose Lift of Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

3.9 Remolding and Compaction of Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.10 Protection of Compacted Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.11 CQA Procedures for Test Pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.12 Final Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 4. Geomembranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.1 Types of Geomembranes and Their Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

4.2 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3 Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.4 Seaming and Joining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.5 Protection and Backfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4.6 Complete System (Sheet and Seams) Leak Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
4.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Chapter 5. Geosynthetic Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
5.1 Types and Composition of Geosynthetic Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

5.2 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
5.3 Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.4 Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
5.5 Backfilling or Covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.6 Exposed Geomembrane Covered GCLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Chapter 6. Soil in Drainage and Alternative Cover Systems
6.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

6.2 Material Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
6.3 Material Gradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
6.4 Control of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
6.5 Location of Borrow Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
6.6 Processing of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
6.7 Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
6.8 Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
6.9 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
6.10 Alternative Final Covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Chapter 7. Geosynthetic Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

7.2 Geotextiles as Filters and Separators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
CONTENTS vii
7.3 Geotextiles as Protection Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

7.4 Geonets and Geonet–Geotextile Geocomposites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
7.5 Other Types of Drainage Geocomposites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
7.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Chapter 8. Vertical Cutoff Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

8.2 Types of Vertical Cutoff Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
8.3 Construction of Slurry Trench Cutoff Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
8.4 Other Types of Cutoff Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.5 Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.6 Specific CQA Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
8.7 Postconstruction Tests for Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
8.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Chapter 9. Ancillary Materials, Appurtenances,

and Other Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
9.1 Plastic Pipe (Also Known as “Geopipe”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

9.2 Sumps, Manholes, and Risers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
9.3 Liner System Penetrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
9.4 Anchor Trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
9.5 Access Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
9.6 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
9.7 Erosion-Control Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
9.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

This page intentionally left blank
Preface
The important role of construction quality assurance (CQA) and construction

quality control (CQC) in the development of environmentally safe waste-disposal
facilities is widely acknowledged by all who are involved in the design, construc-
tion, permitting, and operation of such facilities. The best design will not neces-
sarily lead to successful containment of wastes unless the facility is properly con-
structed. The CQC/CQA process, as part of a total effort aimed at ensuring quality
in the constructed project, is crucial.
Proper CQC/CQA for waste containment facilities is a complex process. The
materials used in constructing landfills, waste impoundments, and similar facili-
ties include natural soil materials, processed earthen materials, and a wide range
of geosynthetic materials. A large number of types of tests and observations are es-
sential elements to good CQC/CQA. The purpose of this book is to describe those
elements in detail and offer recommendations for types of tests and observations,
frequency of tests and observations, and steps that are necessary to integrate the
pieces into a successful CQC/CQA program.
This book originates from a 1990–1993 project conducted by the authors for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Cooperative Agreement
No. CR-815546. The project had the express purpose of producing a Technical
Guidance Document (TGD) on quality assurance and quality control for waste con-
tainment systems. The project was completed with the issuance of EPA Technical
Guidance Document EPA/600/R-93/182, “Quality Assurance and Quality Control
for Waste Containment Facilities,” in September 1993. The EPA project officer
was David A. Carson. The technical guidance document that was generated was re-
viewed in detail by Mr. Carson and Mr. Robert E. Landreth of the U.S. EPA, who
worked closely with the authors in finalizing the document. Clearly, Mr. Carson
and Mr. Landreth should be part of the authorship because of the insight, time,
and energy that they invested in the project. Their respective positions with U.S.
EPA, however, prevent them from this visibility. Their efforts are hereby ac-
knowledged with sincere thanks. In addition to agency personnel, the TGD was
reviewed by a number of industry and academic experts. They are acknowledged
as a group and are listed in the preface of the TGD.
ix
x PREFACE
After the EPA guidance document was published, the authors felt that the
document would experience wider dissemination through publication in book
form and, with ASCE Press as the publisher, would reach a broad-based, consult-
ing and design engineer audience in the United States as well as numerous other
countries. As such, an introductory chapter was added as an explanation of liner
systems, together with a brief background of the various natural and geosynthetic
materials involved. The first edition of the book was published by ASCE in 1995.
Since that time, however, the following activities have occurred:
• Many test methods have been developed or modified (by ASTM, GRI, and
others) to reflect current practice in containment facilities.
• Generic specifications (by ASTM, GRI, PGI, and others) have been developed,
particularly for geosynthetics.
• Field practice has been upgraded. In some instances, completely new prac-
tices have been adopted (e.g., bioreactor landfills and the electrical leak loca-
tion method).
• In a few cases, practices have been modified in favor of more modern and ef-
fective methods.
Thus, this second edition of the book should prove useful. Please note that the
structure of this second edition remains like that of the first, yet the material con-
tained herein has been upgraded considerably.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the many individuals, too numerous to
name here, who over the years have shared their experiences and recommenda-
tions concerning quality assurance and quality control with the authors. The
member organizations of the Geosynthetic Institute are particularly thanked for
support of this effort. Our sincere appreciation is extended to all involved in help-
ing us to develop this book and very much to the anonymous reviewers of this sec-
ond edition, who provided many insightful comments and issues. . . Thank you.
David E. Daniel
Robert M. Koerner
Waste Containment
Facilities
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to Waste
Containment Systems
1.1 Introduction
Construction quality assurance (CQA) and construction quality control (CQC) are
widely recognized as critically important factors in overall quality management for
waste containment facilities. The best of designs and regulatory requirements will
not necessarily translate to waste containment facilities that are protective of human
health and the environment unless the waste containment and closure facilities
are properly constructed. Additionally, for geosynthetic materials, manufacturing
quality assurance (MQA) and manufacturing quality control (MQC) are equally
important. Geosynthetics refer to fabricated polymeric materials such as geomem-
branes, geotextiles, geonets, geogrids, and geosynthetic clay liners.
The purpose of this book is to provide detailed guidance for proper MQA and
CQA procedures for waste containment facilities. The book is also applicable to
MQC and CQC programs on the part of the geosynthetic manufacturer, installer,
and contractor. Although all waste containment facility designs are different,
MQA and CQA procedures are similar. In this document, no distinction is made
concerning the type of waste to be contained (e.g., hazardous or nonhazardous
waste) because the MQA and CQA procedures needed to ensure quality lining sys-
tems, fluid collection and removal systems, and final cover systems are the same
regardless of the waste type. This book has been written to apply to all types of
waste disposal facilities, including hazardous-waste landfills and impoundments,
municipal solid-waste landfills, various types of liquid impoundments, and final
covers for new facilities and site remediation projects.
This book is also intended to aid those who are preparing MQA/CQA plans,
reviewing MQA/CQA plans, performing MQA/CQA observations and tests, and
reviewing field MQC/CQC and MQA/CQA procedures. Permitting agencies may
use this book as a technical resource to aid in the review of site-specific MQA/CQA
plans and to help identify any deficiencies in the MQA/CQA plan. Owner/opera-
tors and their MQA/CQA consultants may use this book for guidance on the plan,
the process, and the final certification report. Field inspectors may use this book
and the references herein as a guide to field MQA/CQA procedures. Geosynthetic
manufacturers may use the book to help establish appropriate MQC procedures
and as a technical resource to explain the reasoning behind MQA procedures.
1
2 WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITIES
Construction personnel may use this book to help establish appropriate CQC pro-
cedures and as a technical resource to explain the reasoning behind CQA proce-
dures. Individuals seeking certification may use this book as a textbook. Individuals
working on nonwaste-disposal facilities (e.g., liners for agriculture-related liners
and covers, waste piles, and liquid-retention reservoirs) may use this book as guid-
ance for MQA and CQA. The scope of this book includes all natural soil and geosyn-
thetic components that might normally be used in waste containment facilities
(e.g., in liner systems, fluid collection and removal systems, and cover systems).
This book draws heavily on information presented in several U.S. EPA
Technical Guidance Documents: “Design, Construction, and Evaluation of Clay
Liners for Waste Management Facilities” (1988), “Lining of Waste Containment
and Other Impoundment Facilities” (1989), and “Inspection Techniques for the
Fabrication of Geomembrane Field Seams” (1991). Both editions of this book are
similar to the U.S. EPA document “Technical Guidance Document: Quality Assur-
ance and Quality Control for Waste Containment Facilities” (Daniel and Koerner
1993), but they contain additional information and recommendations. In addi-
tion, technical information concerning many of the principles involved in con-
struction of liner and cover systems for waste containment facilities is provided in
three additional U.S. EPA documents: “Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill
Design, Construction, and Closure” (1989), “Design and Construction of RCRA/
CERCLA Final Covers” (1991), and “Assessments and Recommendations for
Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Facilities” (2002). Additionally,
numerous books and technical papers in the literature form a large database from
which information is drawn in the appropriate sections.
This initial chapter introduces the general concepts of liner systems and cus-
tomary components of a waste containment system as constructed in the United
States. It should be recognized that this is a generalized approach and that there
are many possible alternative strategies for waste containment. Furthermore,
other countries have different strategies for the disposal of their wastes. Even
within the United States, individual states have different requirements. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgates rules and establishes
minimum technology guidance, but individual states may go beyond these mini-
mum requirements.
Neither this initial chapter nor the book itself covers design. The assumption
is that the design has been completed and that the site-specific plans and specifi-
cations are in existence. This book picks up at that point where the necessary qual-
ity assurance (QA) plan and supporting documents are developed and imple-
mented accordingly.
1.2 Waste Generation
The amount of solid waste generated in the United States is enormous and con-
tinues to grow despite aggressive recycling efforts. Figure 1-1 gives data collected
by the U.S. EPA for municipal solid waste (MSW). Note that the data in this figure
INTRODUCTION TO WASTE CONTAINMENT 3
Figure 1-1. Municipal Solid-Waste Generation in the United States from

1960 to 2000.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA documents.
do not include construction demolition debris, incinerator ash, stabilized sludges,

and nonhazardous industrial waste. These materials are often codisposed with
MSW and approximately double the quantities shown. The problem of waste dis-
posal, however, is worldwide, and all countries are confronted with a solid-waste
disposal dilemma to various degrees. Table 1-1 gives some insight into the global
situation in terms of all types and strategies of waste disposal. Note that Canada,
Table 1-1. Statistics for Municipal Solid-Waste Disposal Methods as

Percent of Total (mid-1990s)
Country Landfill Incineration Recycling and Composting

Canada 75 6 19
Denmark 22 54 24
France 59 32 9
Greece 93 0 7
Japan 27 69 4
Mexico 99 0 1
South Korea 72 4 24
Sweden 39 42 19
Switzerland 14 46 40
United Kingdom 84 9 7
United States 57 16 27
Source: Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
France, Greece, Mexico, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States
all use landfilling as their major waste-disposal method.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider. For example, the U.S. Supreme
Court decided in 1994 that the ash from municipal solid-waste incinerators and
trash-to-steam incinerators may be hazardous and must be evaluated accordingly.
If found to be hazardous (see our later discussion of the definition of hazardous
waste), the ash must be contained, as with other hazardous waste (i.e., in a haz-
ardous-waste landfill with a double liner system).
The following classes of materials, listed in descending order of approximate
degree of hazard, constitute the majority of solid-waste materials (modified from
EPA 1992):
• radioactive waste,
• hazardous waste,
• hospital and research waste,
• municipal solid waste,
• sewage treatment sludge,
• contaminated dredge soil,
• incinerator ash,
• heap leach residual waste,
• electric power-station ash,
• mine spoil, and
• construction demolition waste.
The critical issue pertaining to waste containment facilities (i.e., landfills) is usu-
ally groundwater pollution. The use of some type of liner on the bottom and sides
of landfills that contain solid wastes has been considered necessary in many coun-
tries since the late 1970s. This necessity is created by the liquids in the landfilled
materials, augmented by rainfall and snowmelt, interacting with the waste and
forming a liquid called “leachate.” The leachate flows downward by gravity and,
if not for a liner, continues its migration, eventually causing groundwater and/or
surface-water pollution. Both the quantity and quality of leachate are of concern.
In addition, volatile organics in the waste or leachate, as well as gases of decom-
position such as methane, contribute to landfill gas, which also requires contain-
ment and which, if not contained, poses a threat to the surrounding environment.
1.3 Regulations
In the United States, solid waste is regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to RCRA. The term hazardous waste has a specific, legal definition. Waste
is hazardous if the following conditions are met:
1. It is listed as a hazardous waste (hundreds of wastes are specifically identified

in Appendix VIII of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251).
2. It is mixed with or derived from a hazardous waste.

3. It is not excluded (some wastes, such as municipal solid waste, are specifically
identified and excluded as hazardous waste).
4. It possesses any one of four characteristics: (1) ignitability (flash point 60 °C);
(2) corrosivity (pH between 2 and 12); (3) reactivity (reacts violently with water
or is capable of detonation); or (4) toxicity as determined by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test.
For those waste materials considered nonhazardous, the applicable legislation

is contained in Subtitle D of RCRA. Specific U.S. EPA regulations are published
in Parts 257 and 258, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Here the liner
must be a composite liner made up of a geomembrane (GM) in “intimate contact”
with an underlying compacted clay liner (CCL), i.e., a GM/CCL. Above this com-
posite liner is a leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) consisting of a
drainage material, within which is often located a perforated pipe removal system.
A cross section of such a composite liner and leachate collection system is shown
in Figure 1-2(a). A pipe network is generally contained within the drainage soil
and usually drains into a sump at the low elevation of the landfill or cell. From
here, leachate is removed by a submersible pump. The pump is lowered in verti-
cal manholes that extend up through the waste mass or in large pipe risers extend-
ing up the sideslope of the facility. Leachate flow can also be gravitational to beyond
the limits of the cell or landfill. Generally, the leachate must be removed and
appropriately treated for the active life of the landfill plus a 30-year postclosure
period. However, the 30-year period has yet to be reached for any landfill con-
structed under the current regulations; longer periods of leachate removal and
treatment are expected for at least some sites. Alternative designs may be approved
by individual states, but the alternative design must be shown to limit the concen-
tration of contaminants in groundwater to acceptably low values at the critical
point of compliance.
For waste materials that are considered hazardous, as described previously,
the applicable legislation is contained in Subtitle C of RCRA. These U.S. EPA reg-
ulations are contained in 40 CFR 264.221. Here the strategy is to have two liner
systems with a leak detection layer between them and a leachate collection layer
above them. The purpose of the leak detection layer is to determine if (and to
what extent) leakage is occurring through the upper or primary liner and to pro-
vide a mechanism for removing liquids that enter this layer. The double liner sys-
tem with an intermediate leak detection system is the hallmark of hazardous waste
landfills in the United States. Guidelines are contained in 40 CFR 260, 265, 270,
and 271. The individual components, as they appear in Subtitle C regulations, are
shown in Figure 1-2(b).
It should be emphasized that both Figs. 1-2(a) and (b) represent minimum
requirements that individual states must follow or exceed by their specific regula-
tions. Many states exceed the federally mandated minima.
Fahim and Koerner (1993) have compiled state regulations for Subtitle D liner
systems for municipal solid-waste (often considered nonhazardous) landfills, as
GT (opt.)
GM*
*0.75 mm min.,
1.5 mm if HDPE
(a) Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P-GM*
S-GM*
*0.75 mm min.,
1.5 mm if HDPE
(b) Hazardous Waste Landfill

Figure 1-2. Illustrations of Cross Sections of Minimum Liner Systems
beneath Solid Waste for (a) Municipal Solid-Waste Landfill and
(b) Hazardous-Waste Landfill.
Note: GT, geotextile; GM, geomembrane; GN, geonet; GC, geocomposite; HDPE, high-
density polyethylene; P, primary; and S, secondary.
they existed in 1993 just before the Subtitle D rules took effect. Approximately 20
states required composite liners, and 19 states continued to place sole reliance on
compacted clay liners (CCLs). At the two extremes, 8 states used only geomem-
branes, and 14 states used only natural soil. Some states had alternate strategies,
so the total was greater than 50. The situation was mixed and was rapidly chang-
ing at the time of the survey. Regarding double MSW liner systems with leak
detection capability, 12 states had adopted this type of strategy (as of 1993) for
their MSW material or used it as an alternate strategy. No two states, however,
appear to have had the same recommended cross sections. The general tendency
appeared to be a single geomembrane primary liner with a composite secondary
liner, as in the hazardous waste landfill liner shown in Figure 1-2(b). Regulations
have shifted over the past decade; the largest changes include a uniform use of
composite geomembrane and CCL (i.e., a GM/CCL liner) or the use of geosyn-
thetic clay liners (GCLs) to replace the CCL (i.e., a GM/GCL liner) or to augment
it (i.e., a GM/GCL/CCL liner). The state regulatory requirements for MSW land-
fill liners continue to undergo adjustments.
In addition to the liner system beneath and on the sideslopes of the waste,
a final cover (or closure) must eventually be placed over the completed solid-
waste mass. Requirements for landfill covers are also included in federal regu-
lations. For liner systems of the type shown in Figs. 1-2(a) and (b), a possible
cover above the waste is illustrated in Figure 1-3. For hazardous waste, the strat-
egy for a barrier against water infiltration through the cover is a composite
GM/CCL liner. For nonhazardous MSW, the regulations simply require a bar-
rier to infiltration. The regulations are confusing because they require that the
barrier layer be no more permeable than the bottom liner, but they do not
specifically require a GM/CCL liner (or the equivalent) that has similar per-
formance characteristics to a GM/CCL bottom liner. Furthermore, the required
hydraulic conductivity of the CCL has been raised to 1 ⫻ 10–5 cm/s (Austin
1992). If methane is anticipated, a gas transmission layer may be necessary
beneath the liner. Also, a drainage layer above the liner may be necessary to
drain water coming through the cover soil as well as to maintain stability of the
cover soil. The cover soil may be thick in northern states, where frost penetra-
tion is deep. This protection is required to prevent frost degradation of the CCL
component of the barrier system. The vegetative layer is important for erosion
control. In areas where vegetation cannot be grown or maintained (e.g., arid
areas) the use of cobbles or stone riprap may be required.
Regarding cover systems for MSW, the heavy reliance on a single CCL barrier
by the states was noticeable in 1993; it was the strategy of 36 states (Fahim and
Koerner 1993). Equally noticeable was the lack of a requirement for a composite
liner strategy by the states (required by only 6 states). Between these two extremes,
17 states had adopted a single geomembrane as the barrier system in the cover.
This is a changing situation because many states are rapidly coming into com-
pliance with the federal minimum technology guidance (MTG) regulations. As with
liner systems, the largest change in the past decade is the introduction of GCLs into
final cover systems. GCLs have been used to replace the clay component.
Ground Surface
GM
Figure 1-3. Typical Cover System Recommended by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for Landfills with Liner Systems as Shown in Figure 1-2.
Note: GT, geotextile; GN, geonet; and GM, geomembrane.
Landfill covers are an integral part of waste containment systems. A level of

concern should be shown in both design and construction of final covers so that
they are equal to the liners beneath the waste.
1.4 A Generalized Waste Containment System
In all federal legislation and (to our knowledge) state legislation as well, a permit
applicant can suggest that an alternative be used in place of the standardized
design. This option is embodied under the concept of “technical equivalency.”
The concept creates the possibility of using various geosynthetic materials because
the regulations are primarily based on natural soil materials. The following sub-
stitutions might be, and frequently are, considered:
• Geonet (GN) drains may be considered to replace or augment soil drainage

layers.
• Geotextile (GT) filters may be used to replace soil filter layers.
• Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) barriers may be used to replace or augment

compacted clay liners (CCLs).
• Geotextile gas drainage layers may be used to replace soil drainage layers
beneath the barrier layer in a landfill cover.
• Geogrid (GG) reinforcement layers may be used to stabilize soil slopes, or to
cover soils, or to build berms for lateral containment of the waste.
• Geotextile protection layers may be incorporated in the design to prevent
puncture of the geomembrane.
• Geosynthetic erosion control (GEC) materials may be used to stabilize topsoil
and vegetation in the cover system.
With these alternatives in mind, we illustrate a possible cross section in Figure

1-4. It illustrates a double liner system consisting of GM/GCL as the primary liner
and GM/CCL as the secondary liner. The leak detection system is a GT/GN com-
posite. The leachate collection layer on the bottom of the landfill is gravel with a
perforated pipe network contained therein. A geotextile filter covers the entire
footprint of the landfill and prevents clogging of the leachate collection and
removal system. A geotextile cushion beneath the gravel protects the primary
geomembrane from puncture by stones in the overlying gravel. On the sideslopes,
the leachate collection system is a GT/GN composite merging into the gravel on
the base. As noted on Figure 1-4, the steep side soil slopes beneath the liner sys-
tem may require the use of geogrid reinforcement layers.
Figure 1-4. Solid-Waste Containment System with High Geosynthetic Usage.

The cover system in Figure 1-4 contains a composite GM/GCL as the barrier
layer. A geotextile gas vent is beneath it, and a composite GT/GN/GT (or other
type of geosynthetic composite) is above it. The cover soil contains geogrids or
high-strength geotextiles as veneer reinforcement for stability. A geocomposite
erosion control system is used on the upper portion of the topsoil. Both tempo-
rary and permanent erosion control materials are used, depending on site-specific
conditions.
An abbreviated discussion on each of the natural soil components and geosyn-
thetic components is provided in the next sections.
1.5 Natural Soil Components
1.5.1 Compacted Clay Liners

Low-permeability, compacted soil liners, also referred to as compacted clay liners
(CCLs), are the historic engineered component used in landfills. Clay-rich soil is
placed in layers and compacted with heavy equipment to form a barrier to move-
ment of liquids and gases. The soil liner is typically designed to have a hydraulic
conductivity ⱕ1 ⫻ 10⫺7 cm/s. The origin of this design criterion is unclear; 1 ⫻
10⫺7 cm/s was evidently selected on the assumption that this was an achievable
value that would result in negligibly small seepage through the liner. Experience
has shown that 1 ⫻ 10⫺7 cm/s is often difficult to achieve and requires great care
in construction and careful CQC/CQA. CCLs are constructed either from natural
soil materials that contain sufficient clay to attain the required low hydraulic con-
ductivity or, if suitable soils are not available near the site, from a blend of com-
mercially processed clay (almost always bentonite) and native soils obtained on or
near a site. Compacted clay liners are usually 600 or 900 mm (2 or 3 ft) thick, but
are sometimes 1.2 to 1.5 m (4–5 ft) thick and occasionally are as much as 3 m (10 ft)
thick.
For CCLs, CQA focuses on three crucial components: ensuring that proper
materials are used in constructing the liner; ensuring that materials are placed
and compacted properly; and confirming that the liner is adequately protected
from damage. Details are provided in Chapter 3.
1.5.2 Soil Drainage Layers

Soil materials such as sand, gravel, and processed stone are commonly used as
drainage materials in liner and cover systems. The materials are usually required
to have a hydraulic conductivity from 0.01 to 1 cm/s. A drainage layer is typically
300 to 600 mm (1–2 ft) thick. Important CQA issues are confirmation that suitable
materials are used, verification of proper placement, and confirmation that the
underlying materials (e.g., a geomembrane) have not been damaged. Chapter 6
presents specific guidance.
1.5.3 Soil Filtration Layers

Soils are sometimes used as filter layers, but designers use geotextiles for this pur-
pose much more commonly than soil. Soil filters generally consist of sands with a
thickness of approximately 150 to 300 mm (0.5–1.0 ft). The important CQA issue
is verification of proper grain-size distribution, placement, and protection. Soil fil-
ters for drainage materials are covered in Chapter 6.
1.5.4 Alternative Final Cover Materials

Alternative final covers refers to final cover systems that are designed to manage
water infiltration into and percolation through the cover system using natural
storage and seepage processes, without the benefit of low-permeability layers such
as geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners, or compacted clay liners. For exam-
ple, a very thick evapotranspirative layer of soil or a fine-textured soil may over-
lay a coarse-textured soil that acts as a “capillary break,” tending to cause mois-
ture to be retained in the overlying fine-textured soil.
Alternative final covers were originally developed for arid sites, where soil
materials function as water storage layers or capillary breaks and effectively func-
tion as low-permeability layers in unsaturated soils. Increasingly, alternative bar-
riers are being designed at semiarid and arid sites.
Usually the important construction issues for alternative final cover systems
are grain-size distribution and separation of coarse and fine layers. For example,
a very thick soil layer can store water in an arid site such that the underlying waste
does not receive water and evapotranspiration occurs at a commensurate rate.
Alternatively, relatively clean coarse sand or gravel can make a capillary break
material. However, “contamination” with excessive fines can render the material
hydraulically conductive and thus ineffective in a relatively dry, unsaturated state.
A “capillary barrier” concept is intended to serve as a capillary break, but it can
only do that if it lacks fine-grained material that would enable capillary water to
exist in a relatively dry state.
1.5.5 Vertical Cutoff Barriers

Vertical cutoff walls are sometimes used for new landfills and are commonly used
in conjunction with pump-and-treat operations for site remediation projects.
Because construction of the vertical cutoff wall is often part of the contract for con-
struction of other components of waste containment facilities, CQA of vertical cut-
off barriers is covered in Chapter 8.
1.6 Geosynthetic Components
Geosynthetics are polymeric materials consisting of various formulations. Geosyn-

thetics are manufactured and are packaged as large rolls or cartons. The rolls or
cartons are transported to the site where they are placed, overlapped onto adja-
cent sheets, and seamed or joined for the final use. Following are the individual
types of products within the geosynthetics family:
• geomembranes (GMs),
• geotextiles (GTs),
• geonets (GNs),
• geogrids (GGs),
• geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs),
• plastic pipes, also known as “geopipes” (GPs),
• geocomposites (GCs), and
• geosynthetic erosion control (GEC) materials.
In the context of this book, geomembranes, geotextiles, geonet/geotextile

composites (geocomposites), and geogrids/geotextile reinforcement layers (rein-
forcement geosynthetics) are the most significant. They will be described briefly in
the next subsections. For more details, see Koerner (2005).
1.6.1 Geomembranes
Geomembranes are essentially impermeable sheets of polymeric formulations
used as barriers to liquids and vapors. Geomembranes are required by both fed-
eral and state regulations to be used on the bottom, sides, and generally in the
covers of waste containment facilities. Geomembranes are usually placed directly
over a compacted clay liner (CCL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). The excep-
tion is the primary geomembrane of a Subtitle C facility, in which the geomem-
brane can act alone. The cover of a landfill also requires a geomembrane if the
bottom liner contains one. RCRA Subtitle D regulations clearly state that the cover
must be as impermeable as the liner beneath the waste to prevent long-term
buildup of liquids in the landfill.
The most common types of geomembranes are high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), flex-
ible polypropylene (fPP), reinforced chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE-R), and
nonreinforced or reinforced ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM or EPDM-
R), although other types of geomembranes are also available.
Geomembranes are usually 0.75 to 2.5 mm (30–100 mils, where 1 mil ⫽ 0.001
in.) thick and 4 to 15 m (13–50 ft) wide. It is necessary to prepare and approve the
subgrade or substrate and then to place the geomembrane accordingly. Placement
is followed by seaming, inspection, approving, and backfilling with soil or the
superstratum material in as short a time as possible. A properly designed geomem-
brane has the potential of hundreds of years of service lifetime, but its installation
must be accomplished according to the best possible quality management princi-
ples. Geomembrane manufacture, specification, installation, seaming, backfilling,
and inspection are described in detail in Chapter 4.
1.6.2 Geotextiles
Geotextiles are permeable textiles made from polymeric fibers. Polypropylene is
the most common polymer (approximately 95% of the total); however, a small
amount of polyester is still used. Geotextiles are manufactured into the following
major types, based on the type of fiber used and the manufacturing method:
• woven monofilament,
• woven slit film,
• nonwoven needle punched, and
• nonwoven heat bonded.
Geotextiles in waste containment applications function as follows:
• filtration: above leachate collection sand, gravel, or geonet in the base and
sideslopes of a landfill;
• separation: beneath CCLs or GCLs and above leak detection geonets or gran-
ular soils;
• protection: beneath leachate collection or leak detection gravel and above
geomembranes;
• drainage: above the waste to collect and transmit gases that are generated by
decomposing waste materials; and
• reinforcement: in sideslopes, berms, and cover soils.
The joining of the deployed rolls of geotextiles can be accomplished by over-

lapping or sewing. The design must be specific on the amount of overlap or
strength of sewn seam. The geotextile is covered by either soil or by an overlying
geosynthetic material. Geotextiles must be covered in a timely manner because
geotextiles are the most susceptible category of geosynthetics to UV light degra-
dation. This susceptibility is due mainly to the high surface area of the individual
fibers that make up the geotextile. Protection from UV degradation is most impor-
tant for nonwoven geotextiles for sites with a high intensity of UV light. The design
plans and specifications must include specific criteria about the allowable period
of exposure.
The manufacture, specification, shipping, placement, seaming, and various
aspects of inspection of geosynthetics used for filtration, separation, and protec-
tion are presented in Chapter 7 and for reinforcement in Chapter 9.
1.6.3 Geocomposites
Geocomposites represent a subset of geosynthetics where two or more individual
materials are combined together. They are often laminated and/or bonded to one
another in the manufacturing facility and shipped to the site as a completed unit.
The most common geocomposite used in waste containment is a geotextile bonded
to a geonet, or some other type of drainage core. The principal applications in
landfills are illustrated in Figure 1-4, which shows a geotextile/geonet composite
used in a leak detection application and on the sideslopes in a leachate collection

application. Figure 1-4 also illustrates a geotextile/geonet composite used as an
infiltrating water drain in the cover.
In geocomposites used for such applications, the geotextile serves as both a
separator and a filter, and the geonet or built-up core serves as the associated
drain. The design plans and specifications must be specific as to the type of geo-
textile and drain, as well as the method of bonding. It should be noted that there
may be geotextiles on both the top and bottom of the drainage core and that they
may be different from one another. For example, the lower geotextile may be a
thick needle-punched nonwoven used as protection material for the underlying
geomembrane, whereas the top geotextile may be a thinner nonwoven heat
bonded or woven product. Geocomposite drains are described in Chapter 7.
1.6.4 Reinforcement Geosynthetics

Geogrids and high-strength geotextiles can be used in waste containment systems
in various applications requiring soil or solid-waste reinforcement. Geogrids are
stiff unitized polyethylene or polypropylene products; flexible textilelike polyester
fibers coated with bitumen, latex, or polyvinyl chloride; or stiff polyester or
polypropylene straps or rods. High-strength geotextiles are usually woven poly-
ester fabrics, but they can be polypropylene as well. As shown in Figure 1-4, these
materials can be used to reinforce slopes beneath the waste as well as for veneer
reinforcement of the cover soils above the geomembrane. A growing area for geo-
synthetic reinforcement materials is in vertical and horizontal expansions of land-
fills. Here the geogrids or high-strength geotextiles are used as support systems
for geomembranes in resisting differential settlement of the underlying waste, or
in high berms. In all of these applications, the design plans and specifications
must be specific as to type of product, placement, seaming, and backfilling.
Manufacture, specification, shipping, installation, seaming, backfilling, and
inspection of geogrids and high-strength reinforcement materials are covered in
Chapter 9.
1.7 Geosynthetic Clay Liners
Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) represent a composite material consisting of ben-

tonite and geosynthetics. The bentonite used for GCLs in North America is sodium
bentonite, and the geosynthetics are either two geotextiles or a single geomem-
brane. In the first format, the bentonite is contained by geotextiles on upper and
lower surfaces via an adhesive, needle punching, or stitch bonding. For the single
geomembrane, the bond is achieved by using an adhesive. Numerous styles of
each type of product are currently available, with variations that include a thin
film and polymer coating.
GCLs are typically 5 to 10 mm (0.25–0.375 in.) thick and have approximately
5 kg/m2 (1 lb/ft2) of bentonite. The rolls are 4 to 5 m (13–17 ft) wide, 30 to 60 m
(100–200 ft) long, weigh up to 1,800 kg (4,000 lb) each, and are wrapped in the
factory to prevent premature hydration. It is important to keep the rolls wrapped
and protected until they are ready for field deployment due to the high moisture
absorption of bentonite. In the field, they are unrolled in their final position and
overlapped. Some GCLs require that additional bentonite be placed in the over-
lap area. The project plans and specifications should be clear on all of these
details.
GCLs are commonly used as the lower component of a GM/GCL composite in
primary liner systems of double-lined waste containment facilities. GCLs are also
used as a GM/GCL composite in landfill closure systems and sometimes as replace-
ments for GM/CCL liner systems beneath the facility. It is important to recognize
that GCLs can be used to augment GM/CCL composite liners in many possible
formats (e.g., a GM/GCL/CCL composite).
Chapter 5 describes the manufacture, specification, shipment, handling, place-
ment, backfilling, and inspection of GCLs.
1.8 Other Components of Waste Containment Systems
A properly functioning landfill, surface impoundment, or waste pile may have

numerous other components that are relevant to a properly functioning system.
Selected details are presented in Chapter 9.
1.8.1 Leachate Removal Systems

As leachate gravitationally flows through the waste and into the leachate collection
system, it eventually enters a sump, where it must be removed. Access to the sump
for leachate removal is by a vertical manhole rising through the waste, a sloped
riser pipe following the sideslope, or a penetration through the liner system to a
sump external to the landfill cell. The first two alternatives protrude through the
cover materials. The leachate is actually withdrawn by a submersible pump, which
is lowered into the manhole or riser and operates when leachate accumulates. The
leachate that is removed and collected is held in storage tanks or surface impound-
ments until it can be transported to a treatment facility. Alternatively, some treat-
ment facilities are on-site and still others have piping leading directly to an off-
site treatment system. Numerous strategies are possible, and all are site-specific
design issues.
1.8.2 Bioreactor Landfills (Also Known as Wet Landfills)

As of 2004, the director of an approved state solid waste program can issue
research, demonstration, and development permits for introduction of liquids into
MSW for the dual purposes of accelerating biodegradation and enhancing removal
of harmful constituents. So-called “leachate recycling” is practiced at many land-
fills. Furthermore, bioreactor landfills have additional liquid to optimize the degra-
dation of the organics leading to an anaerobic bioreactor, or even (with the intro-
duction of air) an aerobic bioreactor (Reinhart and Townsend 1998).
The liquids (e.g., leachate, biosolids, waste water, and local precipitation) are
reintroduced into the waste via injection wells or by means of a perforated pipe
network placed beneath a temporary cover. Attention to such details as the pipe
delivery system, holds or slots in the pipe, filter materials (sand or geotextiles),
pipe couplings, waste subsidence, and landfill gas capture is important. Wet land-
fills are a major change in the manner of design, operation, and performance of
landfilling, which will probably see widespread use and acceptance in the near
future.
1.8.3 Gas Extraction Systems

Municipal solid-waste landfills generate a number of gases that tend to rise up
through the waste to the bottom of the cover, where they must be collected and
removed. In some passive systems, the gases (mainly methane) are merely flared
or they are collected in a manifold system above the cover. When the latter is the
case, the gases are collected and used. Active systems are sometimes considered,
in which a vacuum is drawn on the extraction wells or manifold system to maxi-
mize the output and use the gas accordingly. Owner/operators of large landfills
may collect landfill gases, remove (scrub) the liquid and contaminants, and use the
methane for power generation. The power is usually used on site, but if quantities
are large, it can be sold to a local industry or to the local electric power company.
1.8.4 Alternative Daily Cover Materials

All federal and state regulations call for each lift of waste to be covered, usually
with 150 mm (6 in.) of soil. The purposes of this soil cover are the following:
• to control blowing litter,

• to control vectors,
• to limit odors,
• for fire protection, and
• for reasonable aesthetics.
The soil used for daily cover is usually locally available materials from a bor-
row pit. For excavated, below-grade landfill cells, the excavated soil is the logical
choice for daily cover. The soil cover material is often a clayey soil of low
hydraulic conductivity. Such soil layers often become de facto hydraulic barriers
and tend to isolate each day’s placement of new waste. Downward-moving leachate
cannot easily penetrate a layer of low-permeability daily cover and is forced to
travel horizontally, sometimes seeping through the cover and running down the
exterior sideslopes. Such a situation defeats the purpose of leachate collection sys-
tems, makes management of liquids difficult, and may make leachate recycling
impossible.
As a possible replacement to daily soil cover, numerous alternative daily cover

materials (ADCMs) have been developed (Pohland and Graven 1993). These fall
under the categories of
• foams,
• spray-on products,
• indigenous materials, and
• reusable geosynthetics.
The decision to use an ADCM in place of soil cover is a site-specific decision and
should be covered in the design plans and specifications. The products and some
of their details are described in Chapter 9.
1.8.5 Erosion Control Materials

The potential for erosion of cover soils after completion of the facility and during
its postclosure care period must be considered in the design plans and specifica-
tions. The use of both temporary and permanent erosion control materials (as
illustrated in Figure 1-4) is becoming more common.
The particular material selected is a site-specific decision and must be clearly
stated in the design plans and specifications. The various types of geosynthetic
erosion control materials are described in Chapter 9.
1.9 Importance of CQC/CQA
Proper construction quality control and quality assurance for waste containment
facilities is neither easy nor inexpensive. There are several motivations for insist-
ing on comprehensive CQC/CQA: better performance of the facility, avoidance of
expensive repairs later, and avoidance of minimization of claims and subsequent
litigation.
Almost everyone who is experienced in construction can cite examples of major
construction errors that led to problems and sometimes catastrophe. Although
good CQA does not guarantee to eliminate all construction problems, it is widely
believed that it will catch most problems. Good CQA is expected to add value
through better performance to almost all waste containment facilities and to vir-
tually eliminate major construction errors in which the contractor fails to follow
plans and specifications.
Leakage rates from double-lined facilities demonstrate the importance of
CQC/CQA. The measurement of actual leakage rates from double-lined landfills
indicates the value of CQA. Bonaparte and Gross (1990) found that leakage rates
of 50 to 500 L/ha-day (5–50 gal/acre-day) are achievable with the presence of
CQA. This early data set also indicated that CQA significantly reduces the leakage
rate through liner systems.
The fact that CQA has been practiced regularly since the 1990 study is evi-
denced in a 2002 study of leakage from 289 double-lined landfill cells in the
United States (Bonaparte et al. 2002). Figure 1-5 presents average leakage rates
from these landfill cells at different stages. Stage 1 is during construction and ini-
tial waste placement, Stage 2 is after considerable waste has been placed, and
Stage 3 is after final cover is placed. Each point represents the average of the num-
Figure 1-5. Leakage Rates from 289 Double-Lined Landfill Cells in the
United States with Different Types of Primary Liners: (a) Sand Leak Detection
System and (b) Geonet Leak Detection System.
Note: GM, geomembrane; CCL, compacted clay liner; GCL, geosynthetic clay liner and
1.0 L per hectare-day ⯝ 0.1 gal/acre-day.
ber of landfill cells indicated in parentheses. The data indicate that a geomem-
brane (by itself) as primary liner allows for the highest leakage. A geomembrane
over compacted clay liner (GM/CCL) composite results in almost as much leakage,
the true amount of leakage being masked by expelled consolidation water from
the CCL. A geomembrane over geosynthetic clay liner (GM/GCL) composite is
clearly the preferred system for a primary liner system, resulting in extremely low
leakage rates approaching negligible after Stage 2 is reached. Field data (such as
those in Figure 1-5) are powerful in helping us understand the behavior of liner
systems and set values for action leakage rates (ALRs). The situation can become
quite contentious if an ALR has been set for the site and it is exceeded because of
lack of, or poor, CQC and CQA. This same study highlighted a number of critical
issues that must be incorporated into all CQA plans and documents. They are the
following:
• soil and geosynthetic material conformance with the project specifications;

• proper preconditioning and placement of CCL lifts;
• proper compaction moisture content and density of CCLs;
• protection of CCLs from desiccation and freezing;
• placement of GMs without excessive waves and backfilling the GMs in a man-
ner that minimizes the trapping of waves (the goal of these measures is inti-
mate contact between the GM and the underlying CCL or GCL);
• prevention of premature GCL hydration;
• inspection of GM seams, including nondestructive and destructive testing; and
• protection of GMs from puncture by backfilling materials or equipment.
1.10 Cost of CQA
Numerous aspects are involved in the costs associated with construction quality
assurance and control (CQA/CQC) of field installations, as well as manufacturing
quality assurance and control (MQA/MQC) of manufactured geosynthetics. Because
both CQC and MQC are actions taken on the part of contractors, installers, and
manufacturers of their respective materials, it is expected that expenditures are
more than offset by reduced failure rates of samples and the improved quality of
the final installation. Indeed, this improvement is the hallmark of total quality
management, which is the keyword of current industrial practice.
More controversial are the costs associated with CQA and MQA and the ben-
efits derived therefrom. Shepherd et al. (1993) have summarized these CQA expenses
from the perspective of a major owner/operator. As seen in Table 1-2, leakage rates
in double-lined systems appear to be significantly reduced by CQA. Admittedly,
the data are sparse, but this is the trend that one would anticipate. Shepherd and
others have found that CQA costs for a single composite liner range from approx-
imately $31,000 to $74,000 per hectare ($12,500–$30,000 per acre). The CQA
costs for double composite liner systems range from $53,000 to $121,000 per
hectare ($21,000–$49,000 per acre). Understandably, there is a major difference
Table 1-2. Comparative Costs of CQA to Liner Components
Item Units Typical Range of Costs Units Typical Range of Costs
Third-party CQA ha $31,000–$74,000 acre $12,500–$30,000

1.5-mm (60-mil) HPDE liner ha $42,000–$62,000 acre $17,000–$25,000
Geosynthetic clay liner ha $52,000–$74,000 acre $21,000–$30,000
Extra sump liners each $1,000–$5,000 each $1,000–$5,000
Detection system, sumps each $15,000–$30,000 each $15,000–$30,000
Extra liners under pipes ha $25,000–$49,000 acre $10,000–$20,000
Extra 300 mm (1 ft) of ha $12,000–$62,000 acre $5,000–$25,000
compacted clay
Source: Shepherd et al. 1993, with permission from Geosynthetic Information Institute.
in CQA costs between single composite liners and double composite liners. If the
costs cited included the MQA costs of the geosynthetics, the totals would be mar-
ginally higher.
Shepherd et al. (1993) also itemized comparative costs of CQA of single liner
systems versus costs of other components of liner systems (Table 1-2). The cost of
CQA is approximately equal to the cost of an additional liner. A rule of thumb is
that CQA, at a reasonable level of effort, adds an additional 5% to 15% to the cost
of construction and installation.
1.11 References
Austin, T. (1992). “Landfill-cover conflict,” Civ. Engrg., 62(12), 70–71.

Bonaparte, R., and Gross, B. A. (1990). “Field behavior of double lined system.” Waste
Containment Systems, ASCE, New York, 52–83.
Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D. E., and Koerner, R. M. (2002). Assessment and recommendations for
improving the performance of waste containment systems, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-02/099, December, 1150 pp.
Daniel, D. E., and Koerner, R. M. (1993). “Technical guidance document: Quality assur-
ance and quality control for waste containment facilities,” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-93/182.
Fahim, A., and Koerner, R. M. (1993). “A survey of state municipal solid waste liner and
cover systems,” Geosynthetic Research Institute, Philadelphia, GRI Report No. 11.
Koerner, R. M. (2005). Designing with geosynthetics, fifth ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., 796 pp.
Pohland, F. G., and Graven, J. T. (1993). “The use of alternative materials for daily cover
at municipal solid waste landfills,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., EPA/600/R-93/172.
Reinhart, D. R., and Townsend, T. G. (1998). Landfill bioreactor design and operation, Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla./New York, 189 pp.
Shepherd, J., Rivette, C. A., and Nava, R. C. (1993). “Landfill liner CQA: A summary of
real costs and a question of true value.” Proc. 6th GRI Seminar, MQC/MQA and CQC/
CQA of Geosynthetics, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Philadelphia, 29–35.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1988). “Design, construction, and eval-
uation of clay liners for waste management facilities,” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/530-86-007F.
U.S. EPA. (1989). “Lining of waste containment and other impoundment facilities,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/600/2-88/052.
U.S. EPA. (1989). “Requirements for hazardous waste landfill design, construction, and clo-
sure,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/4-89/022.
U.S. EPA. (1991). “Design and construction of RCRA/CERCLA final covers,” U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/4-91/025.
U.S. EPA. (1991). “Inspection techniques for the fabrication of geomembrane field seams,”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/530/SW-91/051.
U.S. EPA. (1992). “Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United States: 1992
update,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/530-R-92-019.
U.S. EPA. (2002). “Assessments and recommendations for improving the performance of
waste containment facilities,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, EPA/600/R-02/099.
van Keen, F., and Mensink, A. (1985). “Brief survey of arrangements for the disposal of
chemical waste in a number of industrialized countries,” Hazard. Waste Hazard. Mater.,
2(3), 333–353.
CHAPTER 2
Manufacturing Quality Assurance (MQA)

and Construction Quality Assurance
(CQA) Concepts and Overview
2.1 Introduction
As a prelude to description of the detailed components of a waste containment

facility, some introductory comments are necessary. These comments are meant
to clearly define the role of the various parties associated with the manufacture,
installation, and inspection of the components of a total liner or closure system for
landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles.
2.1.1 Scope
Construction quality assurance (CQA) and construction quality control (CQC) are
widely recognized as critically important factors in overall quality management for
waste containment facilities. Additionally, for geosynthetic materials, manufactur-
ing quality assurance (MQA) and manufacturing quality control (MQC) of the final
product are equally important.
The purpose of this book is to provide detailed guidance for proper MQA and
CQA procedures for waste containment facilities. The book also is applicable to
MQC and CQC programs on the part of the manufacturer and contractor, respec-
tively. Although facility designs are different, MQA and CQA procedures are the
same. In this book, no distinction is made concerning the type of waste to be con-
tained (e.g., hazardous or nonhazardous waste) because the MQA and CQA pro-
cedures needed to inspect quality lining systems, fluid collection and removal sys-
tems, and final cover systems are the same regardless of the waste type. This book
has been written to apply to all types of waste-disposal facilities, including new
hazardous-waste landfills and impoundments, new municipal solid-waste landfills,
nonhazardous waste liquid impoundments, and final covers for new facilities, as
well as site remediation projects.
This book is intended to aid those who are preparing MQA/CQA plans,
reviewing MQA/CQA plans, performing MQA/CQA observations and tests, and
reviewing field MQA/CQA and MQC/CQC procedures. Permitting agencies may
use the book as a technical resource to aid in the review of site-specific MQA/CQA
plans and to help in the identification of any deficiencies in MQA/CQA plans.
Owner/operators and their MQA/CQA consultants may consult the book for guid-
23
ance on the plan, the process, and the final certification report. Field inspectors
(also called field monitors) may use the book and the references herein as a guide
to field MQA/CQA procedures. Geosynthetics manufacturers may use the book to
help in establishing appropriate MQC procedures and as a technical resource to
explain the reasoning behind MQA procedures. Construction personnel may use
the book to help in establishing appropriate CQC procedures and as a technical
resource to explain the reasoning behind CQA procedures.
This book draws heavily on technical information presented in three U.S. EPA
Technical Guidance Documents: “Design, Construction, and Evaluation of Clay
Liners for Waste Management Facilities” (U.S. EPA 1988a), “Lining of Waste
Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities” (1988b), and “Inspection
Techniques for the Fabrication of Geomembrane Field Seams” (1991a). In addi-
tion, general technical backup information concerning many of the principles
involved in construction of liner and cover systems for waste containment facilities
is provided in three additional U.S. EPA documents: “Requirements for Hazardous
Waste Landfill Design, Construction, and Closure” (U.S. EPA 1989), “Design and
Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers” (1991b), and “Assessment and
Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems”
(2002). Additionally, numerous books and technical papers in the open literature
form a large database from which information and reference will be drawn in the
appropriate sections. This is the second edition of the original 1993 publication
(U.S. EPA 1993; Daniel and Koerner 1995); it maintains the same structure but
updates and extends test method practices, guides, and generic specifications
accordingly.
2.1.2 Definitions
It is important to define and understand the differences between MQC and MQA
and between CQC and CQA and to show where the different activities contrast
and complement one another. The following definitions are appropriate in this
regard.
• Manufacturing Quality Control (MQC): A planned system of inspections that is

used directly to monitor and control the manufacture of a material that is fac-
tory originated (U.S. EPA 1993). MQC is normally performed by the manu-
facturer of geosynthetic materials and is necessary to ensure minimum (or
maximum) specified values in the manufactured product. MQC refers to meas-
ures taken by the manufacturer to determine compliance with the require-
ments for materials and workmanship as stated in certification documents and
contract specifications.
• Manufacturing Quality Assurance (MQA): A planned system of activities that pro-
vides assurance that the materials were constructed as specified in the certifi-
cation documents and contract plans (U.S. EPA 1993). MQA includes manu-
facturing facility inspections, verifications, audits, and evaluation of the raw
materials and geosynthetic products to assess the quality of the manufactured
MQA AND CQA CONCEPTS AND OVERVIEW 25
materials. MQA refers to measures taken by the MQA organization to deter-

mine if the manufacturer is in compliance with the product certification and
contract specifications for a project.
• Construction Quality Control (CQC): A planned system of inspections that is used
directly to monitor and control the quality of a construction project (U.S. EPA
1986, 1993). Construction quality control is normally performed by the geo-
synthetics installer or, for natural soil materials, by the earthwork contractor
and is necessary to achieve quality in the constructed or installed system. CQC
refers to measures taken by the installer or contractor to determine compli-
ance with the requirements for materials and workmanship as stated in the
plans and specifications for the project.
• Construction Quality Assurance (CQA): A planned system of activities that provides
the owner and permitting agency assurance that the facility was constructed as
specified in the design (U.S. EPA 1986, 1993). Construction quality assurance
includes inspections, verifications, audits, and evaluations of materials and
workmanship necessary to determine and document the quality of the con-
structed facility. CQA refers to measures taken by the CQA organization to
assess if the installer or contractor is in compliance with the plans and speci-
fications for a project.
MQA and CQA are performed independently from MQC and CQC. Although
MQA/CQA and MQC/CQC are separate activities, they have similar objectives and,
in a smoothly running project, the processes will complement one another. Con-
versely, an effective MQA/CQA program can lead to identification of deficiencies
in the MQC/CQC process, but an MQA/CQA program by itself (in complete
absence of an MQC/CQC program) is unlikely to lead to acceptable quality man-
agement. Quality is best ensured with effective MQC/CQC and MQA/CQA pro-
grams. See Figure 2-1 for the usual interaction of the various elements in a total
program. Note that the concepts embodied in Figure 2-1 should also pertain to
ancillary operations such as test pads, leak location surveys, and related critical
field activities.
2.2 Responsibility and Authority
Many individuals are involved directly or indirectly in MQC/CQC and MQA/CQA

activities. The individuals, their affiliations, and their responsibilities and author-
ity are discussed below.
The principal organizations and individuals involved in designing, permit-
ting, constructing, and inspecting waste containment facilities are the following:
• Permitting Agency. The permitting agency is usually a state regulatory agency

but may include local or regional agencies and the federal U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Other federal agencies, such as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Bureau
Figure 2-1. Organizational Structure of Manufacturing and Construction

Quality Assurance (MQA/CQA) Inspection Activities.
of Mines, or their regional or state affiliates are sometimes also involved. The
permitting agency reviews the owner/operator’s permit application, including
plans, specifications, and the site-specific MQA/CQA document, for compli-
ance with the agency’s regulations and to make a decision to issue or deny a
permit based on this review. The permitting agency also has the responsibil-
ity to review all MQA/CQA documentation during or after construction of a
facility, possibly including visits to the manufacturing facility and construction
site to observe the MQC/CQC and MQA/CQA practices and to confirm that
the approved MQA/CQA plan was followed and that the facility was constructed
as specified in the design.
• Owner/Operator. This organization (private or public) will own and operate the
disposal unit. The owner/operator is responsible for the design, construction,
and operation of the waste disposal unit. This responsibility includes comply-
ing with the requirements of the permitting agency, submitting MQA/CQA
documentation, and assuring the permitting agency that the facility was con-
structed as specified in the construction plans and specifications and as approved
by the permitting agency. The owner/operator has the authority to select and
dismiss organizations charged with design, construction, and MQA/CQA. If
the owner and operator of a facility are different organizations, the owner is
ultimately responsible for these activities. Often the owner/operator or owner
will be a municipality rather than a private corporation. The interaction of a
state regulatory office with another state or local owner/operator organization
should have absolutely no effect on procedures, intensity of effort, and ulti-
mate decisions of the MQA/CQA or MQC/CQC process as described herein.
• Owner’s Representative. The owner/operator has an official representative who
is responsible for coordinating schedules, meetings, and field activities. This
responsibility includes coordination among all parties involved, that is, the
owner’s representative, the permitting agency, material suppliers, the general
contractor, specialty subcontractors or installers, and the MQA/CQA engineer.
• Design Engineer. The design engineer’s primary responsibility is to design a
waste containment facility that fulfills the operational requirements of the
owner/operator, complies with accepted design practices for waste contain-
ment facilities, and meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the per-
mitting agency. The design engineer may be an employee of the owner/oper-
ator or a design consultant hired by the owner/operator. The design engineer
may be requested to change some aspects of the design if unexpected condi-
tions are encountered during construction (e.g., a change in site conditions,
unanticipated logistical problems during construction, or lack of availability of
certain materials). Because design changes during construction are not uncom-
mon, the design engineer is often involved in the MQA/CQA process. The
plans and specifications referred to in this manual will generally be the prod-
uct of the design engineer. The design engineer is a major and essential part
of the permit application process and the subsequently constructed facility.
• Manufacturer. Many components of a waste containment facility, including all
geosynthetics, are manufactured materials. The manufacturer is responsible
for the manufacture of its materials and for quality control during manufacture
(i.e., MQC). The minimum or maximum (when appropriate) characteristics of
acceptable materials should be specified in the permit application. The man-
ufacturer is responsible for certifying that its materials conform to those spec-
ifications and any more stringent requirements or specifications included in

the contract of sale to the owner/operator or its agent. The quality control steps
taken by a manufacturer are critical to overall quality management in con-
struction of waste containment facilities. Such activities often take the form of
process quality control, computer-aided quality control, and the like. All efforts
at producing better quality materials are highly encouraged. If requested, the
manufacturer should provide information to the owner/operator, permitting
agency, design engineer, fabricator, installer, or MQA engineer that describes
the quality control (MQC) steps that are taken during the manufacturing of
the product. Many manufacturers have quality control programs following
ISO 9000 guidelines. Such programs are to be encouraged. In addition, the
manufacturer should be willing to allow the owner/operator, permitting agency,
design engineer, fabricator, installer, and MQA engineer to observe the man-
ufacturing process and quality control procedures if they so desire. Such vis-
its should be able to be made on an announced or unannounced basis.
However, such visits might be coordinated with the manufacturer to ensure
that the appropriate people are present to conduct the tour and that manu-
facture of the proper geosynthetic is scheduled for that date to obtain the
most information from the visit. The manufacturer should have a designated
individual who is in charge of the MQC program and to whom questions can
be directed and through whom visits can be arranged. Random samples of
materials should be available for subsequent analysis and archiving. However,
the manufacturer should retain the right to insist that any proprietary infor-
mation concerning the manufacturing of a product be held confidential. Signed
agreements of confidentiality are at the discretion of the manufacturer. The
owner/operator, permitting agency, design engineer, fabricator, installer, or
MQA engineer may request that they be allowed to observe the manufacture
and quality control of some or all of the raw materials and final products to
be used on a particular job; the manufacturer should be willing to accommo-
date such requests. Note that these same comments apply to sales organiza-
tions that represent a manufactured product made by others.
• Fabricator. Some geosynthetic materials are fabricated from individual manu-
factured components. For example, certain geomembranes are fabricated by
seaming together smaller, manufactured geomembrane sheets at the fabrica-
tor’s facility. The minimum characteristics of acceptable fabricated materials
are specified in the permit application. The fabricator is responsible for cer-
tifying that its materials conform to those specifications and any more strin-
gent requirements or specifications included in the fabrication contract with
the owner/operator or its agent. The quality control steps taken by a fabrica-
tor are critical to overall quality in construction of waste containment facilities.
If requested, the fabricator should provide information to the owner/operator,
permitting agency, design engineer, installer, or MQA engineer that describes
the quality control steps that are taken during fabrication of the product. In
addition, the fabricator should be willing to allow the owner/operator, per-
mitting agency, design engineer, installer, or MQA engineer to observe the

fabrication process and quality control procedures. Such visits may be made
on an announced or unannounced basis. However, such visits might be coor-
dinated with the fabricator to ensure that the appropriate people are present
to conduct the tour and that the proper geosynthetic is scheduled for fabrica-
tion for that date to obtain the most information from the visit. Random sam-
ples of materials should be available for subsequent analysis and archiving.
However, the fabricator should retain the right to insist that any proprietary
information concerning the fabrication of a product be held confidential. Signed
agreements of confidentiality are at the discretion of the fabricator. The owner/
operator, permitting agency, design engineer, or MQA engineer may request
that they be allowed to observe the fabrication process and quality control of
some or all fabricated materials to be used on a particular job; the fabricator
should be willing to accommodate such a request.
• Project Manager. For large waste containment facilities, a project manager may
be hired by the owner/operator to control and monitor the construction activ-
ities. One of the main tasks in this regard is the decision as to whether to con-
tract with a general contractor or to hire individual subcontractors (e.g., sep-
arate contractors for installation of geosynthetics or earthwork placement).
Furthermore, the project manager may decide to take on some of the activi-
ties typically done by contractors (e.g., procurement of materials). These deci-
sions are made by the owner/operator working with the identified project
manager. Also, the project manager must carefully coordinate the activities
described below for the general, installation, and earthwork contractors.
• General Contractor. The general contractor has overall responsibility for con-
struction of a waste containment facility and for CQC during construction.
The general contractor arranges for purchase of materials that meet the plans
and specifications, enters into a contract with one or more fabricators (if fab-
ricated materials are needed) to supply those materials, contracts with one or
more installers (if separate from the general contractor’s organization), and
has overall control over the construction operations, including scheduling and
CQC. The general contractor has the primary responsibility for ensuring that
a facility is constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications that
have been developed by the design engineer and approved by the permitting
agency. The general contractor is also responsible for informing the owner/
operator and the MQA/CQA engineer of the scheduling and occurrence of all
construction activities. As mentioned previously, a waste containment facility
may be constructed without a general contractor. For example, an owner/
operator or project manager may arrange for all the necessary material, fabri-
cation, and installation contracts. In such cases, the owner/operator’s represen-
tative or project manager will serve the same function as the general contractor.
• Installation Contractor. Manufactured products (such as geosynthetics) are placed
and installed in the field by an installation contractor who is a general contrac-
tor, a subcontractor to the general contractor, or a specialty contractor hired
directly by the owner/operator. The installer’s personnel may be employees of

the owner/operator, manufacturer, or fabricator, or they may work for an inde-
pendent installation company hired by the general contractor, the owner/oper-
ator, or the project manager. The installer is responsible for handling, storage,
placement, and installation of manufactured and fabricated materials. The
installer should have a CQC plan that details the proper manner in which mate-
rials are to be handled, stored, placed, and installed. The installer is also respon-
sible for informing the owner/operator and the MQA/CQA engineer of the sched-
uling and occurrence of all geosynthetic construction activities.
• Earthwork Contractor. The earthwork contractor is responsible for grading the
site to elevations and grades shown on the plans and for constructing earthen
components of the waste containment facility (e.g., compacted clay liners and
granular drainage layers) according to the specifications. The earthwork con-
tractor may be hired by the general contractor or, if the owner/operator serves
as the general contractor, by the owner/operator directly. In some cases, the
general contractor’s personnel may serve as the earthwork contractors. The
earthwork contractor is responsible not only for grading the site to proper ele-
vations but also for obtaining suitable earthen materials, transport and stor-
age of those materials, preprocessing of materials (if necessary), placement
and compaction of materials, and protection of materials during and (in some
cases) after placement. If a test pad is required, the earthwork contractor is
usually responsible for construction of the test pad. It is highly suggested that
the same earthwork contractor that constructs the test fill also constructs the
waste containment facility’s compacted clay liner so that the experience gained
from the test fill process will not be lost. Earthwork functions must be carried
out in accord with plans and specifications approved by the permitting agency.
The earthwork contractor should have a CQC plan (or agree to one written by
others) and is responsible for CQC operations aimed at controlling materials
and placement of those materials to conform with project specifications. The
earthwork contractor is also responsible for informing the owner/operator
and the CQA engineer of the scheduling and occurrence of all earthwork con-
struction activities.
• CQC Personnel. Construction quality control personnel are individuals who
work for the general contractor, installation contractor, or earthwork contrac-
tor and whose job is to ensure that construction is taking place in accord with
the plans and specifications approved by the permitting agency. In some
cases, CQC personnel, perhaps even a separate company, may also be part of
the installation or construction crews. In other cases, supervisory personnel
provide CQC or, for large projects, separate CQC personnel, perhaps even a
separate company, may be used. It is recommended that a certain portion of
the CQC staff should be certified. Such a program is available through the
International Association of Geosynthetic Installers (IAGI).
• MQA/CQA Engineer. The MQA/CQA engineer has overall responsibility for
manufacturing quality assurance and construction quality assurance. The engi-
neer is usually an individual experienced in a variety of activities, although
particular specialists in soil placement, polymeric materials, and geosynthetic

placement will invariably be involved in a project. The MQA/CQA engineer is
responsible for reviewing the MQA/CQA plan, as well as general plans and
specifications for the project so that the MQA/CQA plan can be implemented
with no contradictions or unresolved discrepancies. Other responsibilities of
the MQA/CQA engineer include educating inspection personnel on MQA/
CQA requirements and procedures and special steps that are needed on a
particular project, scheduling and coordinating MQA/CQA inspection activi-
ties, ensuring that proper procedures are followed, ensuring that testing lab-
oratories conform to MQA/CQA requirements and procedures, ensuring that
sample custody procedures are followed, confirming that test data are accu-
rately reported and that test data are maintained for later reporting, and
preparing periodic reports. The most important duty of the MQA/CQA engi-
neer is overall responsibility for confirming that the facility was constructed in
accord with plans and specifications approved by the permitting agency. In
the event of nonconformance with the project specifications or CQA plan, the
MQA/CQA engineer should notify the owner/operator about the details and,
if appropriate, recommend work stoppage and possibly remedial actions. The
MQA/CQA engineer is usually hired by the owner/operator and functions sep-
arately and independently. The MQA/CQA engineer must be a registered pro-
fessional engineer who has shown competence and experience in similar proj-
ects and is considered qualified by the permitting agency. It is recommended
that the person’s resume and record on similar facilities be submitted in writ-
ing and accordingly accepted by the permitting agency before activities com-
mence. The permitting agency may request additional information from the
prospective MQA/CQA engineer and his or her associated organization, includ-
ing experience record, education, registry, and ownership details. The per-
mitting agency may accept or deny the MQA/CQA engineer’s qualifications
based on such data and revelations. If the permitting agency requests addi-
tional information or denies the MQA/CQA engineer’s qualifications, it should
be done before construction so that information can be supplied or another
engineer can be found in time so that the process will not negatively affect the
progress of the work. The MQA/CQA engineer is usually required to be at the
construction site during all major construction operations to oversee MQA/
CQA personnel. The MQA/CQA engineer is usually the MQA/CQA certifica-
tion engineer who certifies the completed project.
• MQA/CQA Personnel. Manufacturing quality assurance and construction qual-
ity assurance personnel are responsible for making observations and per-
forming field tests to ensure that a facility is constructed in accord with the
plans and specifications approved by the permitting agency. MQA/CQA per-
sonnel are usually employed by the same firm as the MQA/CQA engineer or
by a firm hired by the firm employing the MQA/CQA engineer. Construction
MQA/CQA personnel report to the MQA/CQA engineer. A relatively large
proportion (if not the entire group) of the MQA/CQA staff should be trained
specifically for MQA/CQA purposes. In this regard, professional courses are
available, many offering continuing education units (CEUs). Certification of

CQA personnel for both geosynthetic materials and compacted clay liners is
available from the Geosynthetic Certification Institute’s Inspectors Certification
Program (GCI-ICP).
• Testing Laboratories. Commercial laboratories perform many MQC/CQC and
MQA/CQA tests. The testing laboratories should have their own internal qual-
ity control (QC) plan to ensure that laboratory procedures conform to the
appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards or
other applicable testing standards. The testing laboratories are responsible
for ensuring that tests are performed in accordance with applicable methods
and standards, following internal QC procedures, maintaining sample chain-
of-custody records, and reporting data. The testing laboratory should be accred-
ited. For geosynthetic materials, such an accreditation is available through the
Geosynthetic Accreditation Institute Laboratory Accreditation Program (GAI-
LAP). The testing laboratory must be willing to allow the owner/operator, per-
mitting agency, design engineer, installer, or MQA/CQA engineer to observe
the sample preparation and testing procedures or the record-keeping proce-
dures. The owner/operator, permitting agency, design engineer, or MQA/CQA
engineer may request that they be allowed to observe some or all tests on a
particular job at any time, either announced or unannounced. The testing lab-
oratory personnel must be willing to accommodate such a request, but the
observer should not interfere with the testing or slow the testing process.
• MQA/CQA Certifying Engineer. The MQA/CQA certifying engineer is responsi-
ble for certifying to the owner/operator and permitting agency that the facil-
ity has been constructed in accordance with plans and specifications and that
the MQA/CQA document has been approved by the permitting agency. The
certification statement is usually accompanied by a final MQA/CQA report
that contains all the appropriate documentation, including daily observation
reports, sampling locations, test results, drawings of record or sketches, and
other relevant data. The MQA/CQA certifying engineer may be the MQA/
CQA engineer or someone else in the MQA/CQA engineer’s organization who
is a registered professional engineer with experience and competency in cer-
tifying such installations.
2.3 Personnel Qualifications
The key individuals involved in MQA/CQA and their minimum recommended

qualifications are listed in Table 2-1.
2.4 Written MQA/CQA Plan
Quality assurance begins with a plan that eventually becomes the QA document.
The words “plan” and “document” are used interchangeably. The final work
Table 2-1. Recommended Personnel Qualifications

Individual Minimum Recommended Qualifications
Design engineer Registered professional engineer with design

experience in similar waste containment facilities.
Project manager The organization or individual designated by the
owner with knowledge of the project, its plans,
specifications, and QC/QA documents. Often omit-
ted for small projects.
Owner’s representative The individual designated by the owner with
knowledge of the project, its plans, specifications,
and QC/QA documents.
Manufacturer/fabricator Experience in properly manufacturing, or
fabricating, at least 1 million m2 (10 million ft2)
of similar geosynthetic materials. Registry via ISO
9000 is encouraged.
MQC personnel Manufacturer- or fabricator-trained personnel in
charge of quality control of the geosynthetic mate-
rials to be used in the specific waste containment
facility.
MQC officer The individual designated by a manufacturer or
fabricator, in charge of geosynthetic material qual-
ity control.
Geosynthetic installer’s Experience in properly installing at least 1 million m2
representative (10 million ft2) of similar geosynthetic materials.
CQC personnel Employed by the general contractor, installation
contractor, or earthwork contractor involved in
waste containment facilities; certification via IAGI
for geosynthetics or equivalent is recommended.
CQA personnel Employed by an organization that operates separately
from the contractor and the owner/operator; expe-
rience via professional courses or certification is
recommended.
Testing laboratory personnel Experience in testing similar natural soils or geosyn-
thetics involved in waste containment facilities.
Laboratories testing geosynthetics should be
accredited by GAI-LAP or its equivalent.
MQA/CQA engineer Employed by an organization that operates separately
from the contractor and owner/operator, a regis-
tered professional engineer approved by the per-
mitting agency.
MQA/CQA certifying engineer Employed by an organization that operates separately
from the contractor and owner/operator, a regis-
tered professional engineer in the state in which
the waste containment facility is constructed and
approved by the appropriate permitting agency.
MQA/CQA personnel Employed by the MQA/CQA engineer or certifying
engineer. Certification via GCI-ICP for geosyn-
thetic materials and compacted clay liners is
recommended.
product includes both MQA and CQA. These activities are never ad hoc processes
that are developed while they are being implemented. A written MQA/CQA plan
or document must precede any field construction activities.
The MQA/CQA plan is the owner/operator’s written document for MQA/CQA
activities. The MQA/CQA document should include a detailed description of all
MQA/CQA activities that will be used during materials manufacturing and con-
struction to manage the installed quality of the facility. The MQA/CQA document
should be tailored to the specific facility to be constructed and be completely inte-
grated into the project plans and specifications. Differences should be settled
before any construction work commences.
Most state and federal regulatory agencies require that the MQA/CQA docu-
ment be submitted by the owner/operator and be approved by that agency before
construction. The MQA/CQA document is usually part of the permit application.
A copy of the site-specific plans and specifications, MQA/CQA plan, and
MQA/CQA documentation reports should be retained at the facility by the owner/
operator or the MQA/CQA engineer. The plans, specifications, and MQA/CQA
documents may be reviewed during a site inspection by the permitting agency and
will be the chief means for the facility owner/operator to demonstrate to the per-
mitting agency that the MQA/CQA objectives for a project are being met.
Written MQA/CQA documents vary greatly from project to project. No gen-
eral outline or suggested list of topics is applicable to all projects or all regulatory
agencies. The elements covered in this document provide guidance on topics that
should be addressed in the written MQA/CQA plan.
2.5 Documentation
A major purpose of the MQA/CQA process is to provide documentation for those

individuals who were unable to observe the entire construction process (e.g., rep-
resentatives of the permitting agency) so that those individuals can make informed
judgments about the quality of construction for the project. MQA/CQA proce-
dures and results must be thoroughly documented.
2.5.1 Daily Inspection Reports

Routine daily reporting and documentation procedures should be required.
Inspectors should prepare daily written inspection reports that may ultimately be
included in the final MQA/CQA document. Copies of these reports should be
available from the MQA/CQA engineer. The daily reports should include infor-
mation about work that was accomplished, tests and observations that were made,
and descriptions of the adequacy of the work that was performed.
2.5.2 Daily Summary Reports

A daily written summary report should be prepared by the MQA/CQA engineer.
This report provides a chronological framework for identifying and recording all
other reports and aids in tracking what was done and by whom. At a minimum,
the daily summary reports should contain the following (modified from Spigolon
and Kelly 1984; U.S. EPA 1986, 1993):
• date, project name, location, waste containment unit under construction, per-
sonnel involved in major activities, and other relevant identification information;
• description of weather conditions, including temperature, cloud cover, and
precipitation;
• summaries of any meetings held and actions recommended or taken;
• specific work units and locations of construction underway during that partic-
ular day;
• equipment and personnel being used in each work task, including sub-
contractors;
• identification of areas or units of work being inspected;
• testing conducted and test methods that are used;
• unique identifying sheet number of geomembranes for cross-referencing and
document control;
• description of off-site materials received, including any quality control data
provided by suppliers;
• calibrations or recalibrations of test equipment, including actions taken as a
result of recalibration;
• decisions made regarding approval of units of material or of work, and cor-
rective actions to be taken in instances of substandard or suspect quality;
• unique identifying sheet numbers of inspection data sheets and problem
reporting and corrective measures used to substantiate any MQA/CQA deci-
sions described in the previous item; and
• the signature of the MQA/CQA engineer.
2.5.3 Inspection and Testing Reports

All observations, results of field tests, and results of laboratory tests performed on
site or off site should be recorded on a suitable data sheet. Recorded observations
may take the form of notes, charts, sketches, photographs, or any combination of
these. Where possible, a checklist may be useful to ensure that pertinent factors
are not overlooked.
At a minimum, the inspection data sheets should include the following infor-
mation (modified from Spigolon and Kelly 1984; U.S. EPA 1986, 1993):
• description or title of the inspection activity;

• location of the inspection activity or location from which the sample was
obtained;
• type of inspection activity and procedure used (referenced to a standard
method when appropriate or the specific method described in the MQA/CQA
plan);
• the unique identifying geomembrane sheet number for cross-referencing and
document control;
• recorded observations or test data;

• results of the inspection activity (e.g., pass/fail); comparison with specification
requirements;
• personnel involved in the inspection besides the individual preparing the data
sheet; and
• the signature of the MQA/CQA inspector and review signature of the MQA/
CQA engineer.
2.5.4 Problem Identification and Corrective Measures Reports

A problem is defined as material or workmanship that does not meet the require-
ments of the plans, specifications, or MQA/CQA document for a project or any obvi-
ous defect in material or workmanship, even if there is conformance with plans,
specifications, and the MQA/CQA documents. At a minimum, problem identifica-
tion and corrective measures reports should contain the following information
(modified from U.S. EPA 1986, 1993):
• location of the problem;

• description of the problem (in sufficient detail and with supporting sketches
or photographic information where appropriate);
• unique identifying geomembrane sheet number for cross-referencing and
document control;
• probable cause;
• how and when the problem was located (reference to inspection data sheet or
daily summary report by inspector);
• where relevant, estimation of how long the problem has existed;
• any disagreement noted by the inspector between the inspector and contrac-
tor about whether or not a problem exists or the cause of the problem;
• suggested corrective measures;
• documentation of the correction if corrective action was taken and completed
before finalization of the problem and corrective measures report (reference
to inspection data sheet, where applicable);
• where applicable, suggested methods to prevent similar problems; and
• the signature of the MQA/CQA inspector and review signature of the MQA/
CQA engineer.
2.5.5 Drawings of Record

Drawings of record (also called “as-built” drawings) should be prepared to docu-
ment the actual lines, grades, and conditions of each component of the liner sys-
tem. For soil components, the record drawings should include survey data that
show bottom and top elevations of a particular component, the plan dimensions
of the component, and locations of all destructive test samples. For geosynthetic
components, the drawings of record should show the dimensions of all geomem-
brane field panels, the location of each panel, identification of all seams and pan-
els with appropriate identification numbering or lettering, the location of all

patches and repairs, and the location of all destructive test samples. Separate
drawings are often needed to show cross sections and special features such as
sump areas and penetrations.
2.5.6 Final Documentation and Certification

At the completion of a project, or as a component of a large project, the owner/
operator should submit a final report to the permitting agency. This report may
include all of the daily inspection reports, the daily MQA/CQA engineer’s sum-
mary reports, inspection data sheets (including tests conducted and test methods
used), problem identification and corrective measures reports, and other docu-
mentation, such as quality control data provided by manufacturers or fabricators,
laboratory test results, photographs, as-built drawings, internal MQA/CQA mem-
oranda or reports with data interpretation or analyses, and design changes made
by the design engineer during construction. The document should be certified by
the MQA/CQA certifying engineer.
The final documentation should emphasize that areas of responsibility and lines
of authority were clearly defined, understood, and accepted by all parties involved
in the project (assuming that this was the case). Signatures of the owner/operator’s
representative, design engineer, MQA/CQA engineer, general contractor’s repre-
sentative, specialty subcontractor’s representative, and MQA/CQA certifying engi-
neer may be included as confirmation that each party understood and accepted the
areas of responsibility and lines of authority outlined in the MQA/CQA plan.
2.5.7 Document Control

The MQA/CQA documents that have been agreed on should be maintained under
a document control procedure. Any portion of the documents that is modified
must be communicated to and agreed on by all parties involved. An indexing pro-
cedure should be developed for convenient replacement of pages in the MQA/CQA
plan, should modifications become necessary, with revision status indicated on
appropriate pages.
A control scheme should be implemented to organize and index all MQA/
CQA documents. This scheme should be designed to allow easy access to all MQA/
CQA documents and should enable a reviewer to identify and retrieve original
inspection reports or data sheets for any completed work element.
2.5.8 Storage of Records

During construction, the MQA/CQA engineer should be responsible for all MQA/
CQA documents. This includes a copy of the design criteria, plans, specifications,
MQA/CQA plan, and originals of all data sheets and reports. Duplicate records
should be kept at another location to avoid loss of this valuable information if the
originals are destroyed.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
—a picture of a woman sealing a letter. From that time onwards, to
about the beginning of his last decade, the painter’s work consisted
chiefly of the record of the daily life of the civilised bourgeoisie, on
whom Fortune never smiled too lavishly, but from whom she rarely
turned with a quite empty hand. The value of the bourgeois virtues,
of reticent affection, of subdued love, of calm persistency in
uneventful and continually recurring labour, Chardin himself must
have felt. Unlike too many of his Dutch brethren, he saw life, and
dealt with it, where life was not gross. His children have an
unconscious innocence along with their reflectiveness; his boys are
all ingenuous; his young women bring the delightfulness of grace to
the diligent doing of household work in kitchen or parlour; and his
seniors, in gaining experience, have not lost sweetness.
And with the interest of pleasantness you have in Chardin’s case
the assurance of the interest of truth. Hogarth was as true, but he
was less pleasant; Morland was as pleasant, but he was less true.
Hogarth painted an individual; Morland generalised or idealised the
individual, and was contented with a type. Chardin’s figures do not
cease to be typical of the race, while they retain the delicate
accuracy of personal studies, and betray an untiring reference not to
a few models only, but to all the nature he lived amongst. Always
without exaggeration, always with directness and a deep simplicity,
the self-effacing art of Chardin accomplished its task, writing for us
in picture after picture, or print after print, the history of the quietest
of refined lives that the Eighteenth Century knew; arresting for us
the delicate gesture, in itself so slight, yet so completely revealing;
and tracing, on honest and sensitive faces, every expression that
rises above broad comedy, or falls short of high passion.
Unaccustomed though it was to the sincere portrayal of homely
things, Chardin’s own generation became quickly appreciative of the
finest phase of his art, and from 1738 to 1757 (as M. Emmanuel
Bocher has so laboriously and carefully recorded in a volume which
is the inevitable supplement to the De Goncourts’ literary study) the
best engravers of the time—Laurent Cars, Lépicié, Surugue, Le Bas,
and others besides—were busy in the translation of Chardin’s work.
Such accomplished draughtsmen with the burin could not fail, of
course, to express his obvious subject, and to retain in the black and
white of their copperplates the sentiment of the canvas. But they did
more than this—their flexible skill allowed them to retain often
Chardin’s manner and method; so that the very men who had
rendered best, or as well as the best, the trembling light of Watteau
and his immense and airy distance, with all its delicate gradations
and infinite planes, are found to be the complete interpreters of
Chardin’s peculiar breadth and simplicity, and of that deliberate
firmness which is opposed the most to Watteau’s masterly
indecision. The low prices at which the prints were issued made the
prints saleable, and popularised Chardin’s art among the educated
middle class. Often but a couple of francs were charged for an
engraving worth, if it is in fine condition, three or four guineas to-
day.
Contemporary criticism, and especially the criticism of Diderot,
was favourable to Chardin, and may have assisted his fame. There
were years in which ‘the father of modern criticism,’ occupied as
much with intellectual charm and moral teaching as with technical
perfection, fairly raved over the painter whose work was the
eulogium of the tiers état. Lafont de St. Yonne, in 1746, places him
very high in the ranks ‘des peintres compositeurs et originaux.’ In
1753, the Abbé le Blanc writes of him—‘Il prend la nature sur le fait.’
And a few years later it is Diderot who says: ‘It is always nature and
truth. M. Chardin is a man of mind. He understands the theory of his
art.’ Again, ‘M. Chardin is not a painter of history, but he is a great
man.’ Then there dawns upon the critical mind some sense that the
painter is repeating himself. From the old mint he reissues, with but
slight modification, the old coins. Still-life apart, he can give us no
new subjects; and the familiar ends by being undervalued, and the
excellent is held cheaply. At last, from Diderot, in 1767, there comes
the undisguised lamentation, ‘M. Chardin s’en va!’
Fortunately, however, though popularity passed from him, the
old man was able to interest himself in a fresh department of work.
He had painted a few portraits at an earlier time, but now his
attention was attracted to portraiture in pastel—that was the
medium in which an artist as masculine as himself, and as
penetrating, had obtained an admitted triumph; and why should
Chardin fail where Quentin Latour had brilliantly succeeded? Nor did
he fail altogether. He was able to draw back upon himself, in the last
years, a little of the old attention. And the pastel portraits, if they
had the ‘fragilité’ had also the ‘éclat,’ which a well-known verse
attributes to the then fashionable method. And in subjects which
were portraits only, the flesh tints were no longer, by any possibility,
effaced by the stronger reality which somehow Chardin had been
wont to bestow upon the accessories in his pictures.
Pleasant to him and well merited as must have been that slight
return of appreciation which came to Chardin in his eighth decade, it
is not by the labour of that time that we are now likely to class him.
With the galvanised revival of a classical ideal, his name, after his
death, fell into dishonour. Some of his worthiest pictures tumbled,
neglected, about the quays of Paris. Only within the last quarter of a
century has there been evident the sign of an intention to do justice
to his work; and for us his principal distinction is, as I have said
already, that he is not only foremost, but was for years alone, in the
perception of the dignity and beauty of humble matter, and of the
charm which Art may discover in the daily incidents of the least
eventful life.
(The Art Journal, 1885.)

MOREAU
One of the prettiest chapters of the volume in which French artists of
the Eighteenth Century have recorded with grace and freedom the
lighter manners of their age, is that certainly which was written by
Moreau le Jeune. He employed, with extreme diligence, half a life in
writing it. Born in March 1741, he died in November 1814. The son
of a Parisian wigmaker, of the parish of St. Sulpice—which was also
Chardin’s—he, with his brother, Moreau l’Aîné, a painter not greatly
known, was drawn early into the circle of the producers of Art. He
was a pupil of Louis de Lorrain, a now forgotten painter, whom he
followed, at seventeen years old, to St. Petersburg. Coming back to
Paris, he was in the workroom of Le Bas, the engraver, and there he
learned the secret of the burin’s expression. He engraved with
delicate skill. It was but slowly, however, that in his own designs he
showed himself an accomplished draughtsman; for though his
daughter, Madame Carle Vernet—who wrote an account of him—lets
us understand that he was born drawing, there is much of his early
work that is obviously laboured. Suddenly, the De Goncourts tell us—
those critics who, with M. Maherault, the industrious collector, have
studied him the best—suddenly his power of draughtsmanship
declared itself—the individuality of his vision and method. It was in a
drawing commissioned by Le Bas, who sought to engrave it, the
‘Plaine des Sablons’—a review by Louis XV. In it he was revealed as
the successful draughtsman of festivals, the historian of lively
ceremonies. And such success was rewarded. For, with
commendable promptitude, in 1770—the year after the drawing was
executed—he was appointed ‘Dessinateur des Menus-plaisirs,’ and
five years later, when Cochin retired, ‘Dessinateur du Cabinet du Roi.’
Thus, while still a young man, Moreau’s position was assured, and
he was left free to use much of his time in works on which it was
possible to bestow a more exquisite grace than any which could be
fitly employed upon labours in which official portraiture counted for
much. Moreau was free to invent for himself, and free to illustrate
the best literary inventions of a literary age. His career was before
him, and the day not distant when he would produce ‘L’Histoire des
Mœurs’ and the illustrations to the ‘Nouvelle Héloïse.’
I have indicated now, by a brief line or two, the direction in
which Moreau le Jeune must chiefly be studied, and the places in
which he may be seen if men would see him at his prime. Perhaps it
may be a matter of taste, and a matter of taste only, whether one
prefers him in his more spontaneous or in his more official work. The
draughtsman is the same in either labour, though the inspiration is
different. For me his greatest achievement is ‘L’Histoire des Mœurs,’
or, in another phrase, ‘Le Monument du Costume,’ which must be
spoken of in detail later on. For many, and above all, for the lovers
of curiosities, the seekers in byways of history, his celebrity hangs
chiefly on his performance of the various ‘Sacres’; his records of the
public functions, his ‘Fêtes at Versailles for the Marriage of the
Dauphin and of Marie Antoinette’; his ‘Crowning of Voltaire’—at the
Théâtre Français—in 1788; his ‘Fêtes at the Hôtel de Ville,’ on the
birth of a new Dauphin to Louis xvi. Among these we may look
perhaps principally at the ‘Crowning of Voltaire,’ for it has the virtues
of them all. The drawing was engraved by Gaucher, who has
preserved in the print the lively touch of the original. But what, one
asks, was the occasion of the ceremony, what the cause of the
‘crowning’? At the Théâtre Français, Voltaire’s Irène had been
performed for sixteen nights. In those days of limited audiences that
was a brilliant success. The bust of the poet is placed then in the
middle of the stage, to be adorned and declaimed before. Madame
Vestris—another, of course, than the Vestris known to Englishmen—
reads aloud, and with emphasis, the lines of which the Marquis de
Saint-Maur has hurriedly been delivered. Other performers, in more
or less classic garb, cluster about her with garlands in their hands,
ready to bestow them on the bust. In a box, high up on one side of
the theatre, sits the demi-god, with two fair friends—one of whom is
his niece, Madame Denis, and the other that Marquise de Villette to
whom the print that represents the occasion is dedicated. The
playhouse is full. The clapping of hands is lusty and enthusiastic.
People rise in their boxes. Men stare upwards from the pit. Fine
ladies crane their necks to catch a glimpse of the hero with the thin
angular face, with its tell-tale lines of wit and mockery and
observation.
Moreau must have seen the sight himself, and borne away the
vivid recollection of it. Never was l’actualité—the thing that passes,
the thing that may be insignificant to-day, but is to be History to-
morrow—never was l’actualité designed with a more fitting mixture
of grace and precision. But in the more important work next to be
spoken of, there was greater room for invention. Therein was
Moreau, in the true sense, dramatist as well as draughtsman, for
even if the outline of the subject was suggested to him by the
speculator who undertook the publication, it was Moreau alone who
gave veracity and character to the head and gesture of each person
in the play.
The ‘Suite d’Estampes pour servir à l’histoire des Mœurs et du
Costume dans le Dix-huitième Siècle’ began to be published in 1775
by Prault, of Paris, though it has been of late suggested that it was
really conceived and undertaken by a German of the name of Eberts.
The notion was to give a series of plates in which the most correct
and fashionable manners, and the dress of the moment, and the
furniture in vogue, should be together portrayed. The artist first
pitched upon to recall them was, strangely enough, a foreigner.
Freudeberg, a Bernese settled in Paris, a draughtsman of grace and
charm undoubtedly, but of a closely bounded talent, had found
favour with the public, and it was he who was chosen to make—and
he did make—the first dozen drawings. The best engravers of the
day were forthwith to engrave them. But by the time the first series
was finished—and two odd pieces, I believe, not generally taken
account of as belonging to the set—Freudeberg became home-sick
and resolved to depart, and the business of continuing the work,
which in the view of its promoter was to be a practical guide to
fashion, was assigned to Moreau. Moreau did the second series, and
then the third. The second dealt with the fortunes of a lady; the
third with those of a grand seigneur, who was likewise something of
a petit-maître. And for each there was a text, bald, it may be, but in
a measure appropriate. It was anonymous, and chiefly descriptive. A
little later, in a new issue, it was sought to associate the work with
popular literature, and Restif de la Bretonne—a free-spoken ‘realist,’
whom, after long neglect, it is now, not altogether without cause,
the fashion to enjoy—was invited to write his commentary, and his
commentary took the form of quite a new interpretation. ‘Restif,’
says M. Anatole de Montaiglon, ‘au lieu de respecter le sentiment
des trois suites, a isolé chaque motif et chaque planche.’ Restif, that
is, has invented for each plate some fresh little story.
In life, the mind associates with a given and chosen landscape
the more magnetic and memorable of the figures that people it.
These alone bestow on it the reality of its human interest, and the
others may be ignored. And so, among the masses of description
and criticism of the arts of design, the writings which we really
associate with the works they endeavour to vivify are those generally
which have a charm of their own—the charm of the literary touch.
Restif de la Bretonne’s stories, with all their faults, have just that
charm. There is that in them which permits their author to take
possession of the theme, so that the theme belongs no longer at all
to whatever dullard chanced to be the first to treat it.
Two designs which I never see without wanting them are the
most vivacious of Moreau’s series. They are the ‘Sortie de l’Opéra’
and ‘C’est un fils, Monsieur!’ Others, even among the most
admirable, are more limited in their aim. The ‘Grande Toilette,’ for
instance, as its name implies, is occupied more particularly with
raiment. It is a very summary of fashion. It is the great lord, or the
consummate petit-maître, displayed to us when dressing is
completed. The edifice, it seems, has just been crowned.
‘Monseigneur,’ vividly writes Restif de la Bretonne, ‘Monseigneur is
dressed; for some minutes already he has been standing; his cordon
bleu is assumed; they have just given him his purse, and he has his
bouquet.’ Yes, the edifice has been crowned: Monseigneur is ready;
for—and the touch is untranslatable—they have achevé de le
chausser. You see the neat shoes, the garter, the closely drawn
stocking, the whole paraphernalia of the leg he was proud of.
‘Achevé de le chausser’—it is all in the phrase. And now he is free,
no doubt, to enjoy the idleness of the morning, to do a service to a
comedian, and, after an author has had audience of him, to accept
the dedication of a book.
‘La Petite Loge’ is just as characteristic. What one sees is the
inside of an opera-box, of which the tenants are a couple of
bachelors of fashion. A dance is over, on the stage, and a girl who
has taken part in it has been brought into the box, to be encouraged
—to be touched under the chin. And here is an epitome of Restif’s
story. A Prince, struck with the beauty of a ragged little child in the
street, determined that she should be educated—pensioned her and
her mother. Soon, however, busied with the greatest business of his
class and day—‘occupied with intrigue,’ the story-teller tells us—he
forgot his little protégée. She had her money regularly—all that she
was promised—but he was too busy to think of her. Then, one night,
at the Opera, smitten with the charm of a new dancer, he inquired
who the dancer was, and ordered her to be brought to him. As soon
as she was in the box, ‘Il lui passa sous le menton une main un peu
libre’; but then it was disclosed to him that she was the child he had
been struck with. Coulon, the famous dancing-master, had by this
time taught her to some purpose. As for her future, her mother—an
ancestress, I take it, of Halévy’s ‘Madame Cardinal’—had already a
register of one hundred and twenty pages, filled with the
propositions of the Court and the town. ‘Sa mère se reservait le droit
de les comparer,’—for nothing, it seems, even by a Madame
Cardinal, should be done in a hurry. Well, among the girl’s many
lovers there was one who was unselfish. What did he want but to
marry her! The Prince—not minded now to be outdone in chivalry—
generously urged that he should be accepted, and Isabelle was glad
to consent. But the King ordered the lover’s arrest, and the young
people were separated. The girl lived prudently, in London and in
Paris. She and her art were admired; but she died of a sudden
illness. ‘Her young lover was in absolute despair, and the Prince, her
protector, wept for her.’
In the ‘Sortie de l’Opéra’ we see the elegant and famous crowd
that surged out of the theatre after a performance long looked
forward to. ‘Gluck’s new Operas—it is essential to see them,’ said a
writer who knew what it was that a fashionable woman could not
afford to neglect. The ‘all Paris’ of the day was there; and at the
end, when the crowd was in the lobbies, and the aboyeur was calling
the carriages, and the flower-girl was a messenger of intrigue—that
was the moment that gave birth to plans for dainty suppers eaten
away from home, the time when ‘abbés without a family learned the
secret of how they might belong to all.’ What a bustle of flirtation!
What a passing about of love-letters! The elegance of the scene
must make amends, as best it can, for its light-hearted naughtiness.
‘C’est un fils, Monsieur!’ has no such forgiveness to ask of us. It
is the blithest picture that we need to be shown of the home joys of
the refined. A young husband, who is known already as ‘le
Président,’ and who is a student and a fortunate collector of Art as
well as a man of the world, rises from his study chair with
outstretched hands and radiant face, as the newly born baby is
carried in to him in triumph, followed by a procession of household
retainers, and preceded by the lively Miss Rozette, the President’s
foster-sister. Nothing is more expressive than the joyous pantomime
of this privileged young woman, and the answering gestures of the
newly made father; and delightful is the sentiment of the piece. In
England, popular Art has sometimes made the joys of domesticity a
little dull; but here the respectable is actually gay, and nothing but
sunshine lies upon the path of duty.
Of the many writers whom Moreau avowedly illustrated, as
distinguished from those who furnished a text for his designs,
Rousseau was the one in whom he most believed, and for Rousseau
much of his best work was executed. His designs for the Nouvelle
Héloïse were among the last of the important drawings wrought by
him before he made that journey into Italy which his daughter
speaks of as having ‘opened his eyes,’ but which, to whatever it may
have ‘opened’ them, certainly closed them to the aspects of that
France it was his truest mission to portray. The types of Julie and
Saint-Preux are types which Moreau understood—he understood
their impulse and their sentiment; and how many faults he would
have forgiven them for their grace! To illustrate Rousseau was of
course to have the opportunity—and in Moreau’s case it was also to
profit by it—of representing both a deeper and a more immediate
sensitiveness than most of that which claimed interpretation in the
sometimes callous figures of the ‘Monument du Costume.’ Moreau
was grateful for so fortunate an occasion, and he thoroughly
responded to it. His Julie is ‘un type de Greuze honnête,’ with her
‘bouche entr’ouverte,’ her ‘regard profond,’ her ‘gorge couverte en
fille modeste, et non pas en dévote,’ her ‘petite figure de blonde,
mouvante et sensible.’ Moreau read Rousseau again and again: he
genuinely cared for him, and when Rousseau died, the death-scene
was not suffered to pass unrecorded, and of the grave in the Ile des
Peupliers, by Geneva, he made a little etching.
Presently, however, Moreau was to be led away from the very
sentiment of the scenes he had understood the best. His
individuality was lessened, his flexibility arrested by the journey to
Italy, undertaken with Dumont, the architect, in 1786. And his
association with David—‘le peintre de Marat assassiné et le membre
de la Convention’—operated to make more certain his style’s divorce
from all the natural grace and flowing sentiment and homely
unheroic dignity with which it had lived so fruitfully for more than
twenty years. The illustrator of Rousseau was already less happy as
the illustrator of Voltaire; and in 1791 Moreau was received into the
Academy; the drawing which procured him the distinction being that
of ‘Tullie faisant passer son char sur le corps de son père.’ Wille, the
engraver, writes, in his published journal, how he went to the
Academical Assembly when Moreau was received. ‘There was an
Academician to receive: it was Monsieur Moreau, draughtsman and
engraver. He had begged me to be his sponsor, and I presented him
to the Assembly with a great deal of pleasure.’ But Moreau’s
entrance into the Academy was the signal for his exit from the
regions of his native art. The bibliophile may seek with avidity for the
editions of Renouard, which years afterwards Moreau illustrated. But
his verve had deserted him; his talent was gone; his originality had
yielded up the ghost. And somehow, too, in his last years, and in his
old age, poverty overtook him. In February 1814, he wrote to M.
Renouard that he was penniless—‘Je n’ai pas le sou.’ Friends he had,
though; and one of the first acts of Louis xviii. was to reappoint him
to the old office—‘draughtsman to the King.’ He held the place for
but a short time; for on the 30th November, in the same year,
Moreau died. With his later style both he and his daughter, and the
group, too, by whom they were surrounded, were content—no one
assailed it then or looked back regretfully to the earlier—but it is by
the work of the first half of his career as an artist that Moreau finally
takes rank as one of the most precise and flexible of draughtsmen,
and as the closest possible observer of the gay, great world that he
portrayed.
(The Art Journal, 1885.)

GAINSBOROUGH AT THE
GROSVENOR GALLERY
‘If ever this nation should produce genius sufficient to acquire for us
the honourable distinction of an English School, the name of
Gainsborough will be transmitted to posterity, in the history of the art,
among the very first of that rising name.’ So wrote, in his Fourteenth
Discourse, Sir Joshua Reynolds—a lover of pomp and ceremony even
in the art of Literature—doing therein ‘untimely justice’ to the merits of
his contemporary, whom he survived. Since then the English School,
whose separate existence this accomplished admirer of the Roman and
the Bolognese did but doubtfully and modestly look forward to, has
become an accomplished fact, and all but a hundred years after his
death, ‘the talents of the late Mr. Gainsborough’ are honoured at the
Grosvenor Gallery. In the two large rooms and in the vestibule there
are to-day exhibited about a couple of hundred pieces from his brush;
the great Sir Joshua Exhibition of last winter is felt to be successfully
rivalled; and an opportunity is given to the student to perceive the
range, the flexibility, the spontaneity of Gainsborough’s art.
Gainsborough, like any other distinct individuality in Art or Letters,
is best understood when he is taken simply on his merits, without
reference to other personalities who happened to be of his time. To
institute a perpetual comparison between him and Sir Joshua is to
make the sterile blunder that is made when Dickens is pitted against
Thackeray, the epic of Copperfield against the satire of Vanity Fair. In
each case it was only accident that brought the men into juxtaposition;
and as regards Gainsborough, it is rather with Velasquez or Vandyke,
or with some French Eighteenth Century Master of familiar grace, that
we should compare him. These were his kindred, with these he had
something in common, as the Romans, the Bolognese, and sometimes
the Venetians, were the kindred of Sir Joshua. And yet, to a certain
extent, comparison between Gainsborough and Sir Joshua is even now
unavoidable. Living at the same period and in the same great town,
painting the same people, and—save for the briefer apparition of
Romney—dividing between them, though dividing unequally, the
applause of polite Society, that choice which the men of their time had
to make of one of them, has still to a certain extent to be made by us.
Often, of course, we are liberated from the necessity of any such
narrow alternative; but when we look at the portraits, by the two
artists, of Johnson, Garrick, Mrs. Siddons, the characteristics of each—
what each lacked and what each brought to the accomplishment of his
task—cannot but suggest themselves. And it will then be apparent that
Reynolds painted with a more obvious learning, Gainsborough with a
more spontaneous grace; Reynolds often with a more determined
adherence to the particular character, Gainsborough with a keener
enjoyment of the suggestions that character afforded for translating a
sometimes uncouth nature into an exquisite art. Take, for instance, the
two portraits of Mrs. Siddons: the learning and tradition of the Schools,
the disposition towards a dignity that may be well-nigh pompous, are
in Sir Joshua’s ‘Tragic Muse’; the spontaneous grace, the disposition
towards simplicity are in the Mrs. Siddons of Gainsborough. Further,
again, to compare the portraits of Dr. Johnson by Sir Joshua with that
one by Gainsborough at the Grosvenor Gallery, is to see that here is an
instance in which the fidelity—the unflattering fidelity—is on Reynolds’
side, and the idealisation on Gainsborough’s. Yet it is hardly needful to
declare of so great a man as Gainsborough that he never idealised
merely that he might flatter. He idealised because his vision of the
world was bound to be poetic. He was a poet above all things. The
ideal was his atmosphere. But Sir Joshua, with all his
accomplishments, lived with the prose of the world, and, as a rule,
was but in vain ambitious to reach to its poetry.
The poetic character of Gainsborough’s mind and work is, then,
the first thing to be realised, if we are to understand his pictures. For
otherwise we shall be offended at exaggerations and astonished at
suppressions, both of which are the result of a method he adopted in
obedience to his temperament, which combined, of course, a gentle
and genuine love of Nature with a consuming thirst to see that Nature
was never deprived of the assistance of Art. Gainsborough has been
written of as the earliest Master of Naturalism—save, indeed, Hogarth
—in the English School. Nor is the description untrue; in the sense that
he sought his inspiration from Nature, instead of from academies, and
that his landscape had more than a suggestion of Suffolk or of
Somerset. Yet Morland carried Naturalism much further than
Gainsborough, and Constable much further than Morland.
Gainsborough was never a mere copyist of Nature. From the first he
composed and arranged, but his artifices were seldom very apparent,
and his control over actual form—his artistic modification of it—was
gentle and tempered, and this is most of all made evident by the
display of his Landscape. With the permanent exhibition at the
National Gallery and the annually recurring winter shows at Burlington
House, no one of course has any need to be ignorant of the fact that
one of the most fascinating of the painters of portraits was also a
landscape painter. But the display at the Grosvenor Gallery will bring
home to people a truth some may have overlooked, because at the
Grosvenor Gallery Gainsborough’s range in landscape work is seen to
have been extensive. No single early painting there, indeed, can claim
to be quite the equal of the ‘Great Cornard’ picture in Trafalgar Square,
but the paintings are so many, and the subjects so varied, that the
impression they produce must be great. In the East Room, the smaller
room, are some of the most interesting of these landscapes. There—to
begin with only a minor example—is the ‘Landscape with Figures
against a Tree’: one of the very few dated pictures. It is of the year
1775, or just about the time that the painter left Bath for London. It is
interesting as seeming to belong to an earlier period, as carrying on to
a time when most of his work had changed character, the features of
his more youthful work. It is a bit of every day English scenery,
accepted for what it is, with a tolerance of the commonplace rare with
him, indeed in any day, but, as one would have thought, quite
impossible to his later life. Here, too, is one of his few failures to attain
what was really beautiful, ‘A Landscape with Cows,’ lent by the
trustees of the Duke of Newcastle—an artificial scene of blue distance
and of hot and ‘unconvincing’ foreground. ‘A View in Shropshire’ is in
character not less classical, not less suggestive of Claude, but it is far
more successful. The foreground is of wooded country, brown and
gold; behind it, a richly illuminated champaign ends abruptly in a
conical hill, which is the Wrekin beheld in the light of a selected hour.
The Catalogue of the Exhibition—full of industriously compiled detail
and of quaint anecdote, carefully burrowed for in half-forgotten places
—might, perhaps, have chronicled the fact that the great picture we
are speaking of is repeated, feature by feature, in another. But this
other happens to be hung so high that its merits we can hardly
estimate. Its pedigree, however, is unimpeachable. The little
‘Landscape with Horses Ploughing’ recalls, in the disposition of its
objects, Turner’s ‘Windmill and Lock,’ and Turner, who was never above
taking suggestions—who took them from every one—may possibly
have seen it. Lord Bateman’s ‘Boys and Fighting Dogs,’ though by no
means among the most attractive things, is at least memorable. It
shares with several other pictures the business of proving that as a
draughtsman of animals—certainly as a draughtsman of dogs—
Gainsborough had few rivals; and it is one of the rare instances of
Gainsborough’s painting what is properly called a subject picture—a
picture in which the portrayal of an incident has been the first care.
Furthermore, the boys here—like that uncouth child, ‘Jack Hill, in a
Cottage’—are, at all events, perfectly natural examples of everyday
folk. Generally his cottage urchins, though they have rustic grace and
rustic wildness, though they roll on the greensward and dabble in the
brook, are not profound studies of a real peasantry; and, though Leslie
indeed said of the ‘Girl with a Pitcher’ that nothing more beautiful had
ever been painted, we may remember that this lavish appreciation by
a brother artist who was invariably generous was bestowed at a time
when the graver aspects of the peasant’s life had, as far as pictorial art
is concerned, been mirrored only in the art of Turner. The student of
to-day, the student of Millet, can hardly single out for truthfulness,
though he can always single out for grace, the rustics of
Gainsborough. Into the realities of peasant life, Gainsborough scarcely
even essayed to have any deep entrance.
The large ‘View at the Mouth of the Thames’ is one of the most
realistic, one of the least poetic, of Gainsborough’s pictures. It is an
instance of how well this curiously flexible genius could at need
perform that which somebody else could still perform much better. And
if it had not to be remembered that Collins and Turner came after
Gainsborough, instead of before him, we should say the same about
the Duke of Westminster’s ‘Coast Scene.’ Here a sea that has only
enough of movement to give it vivacity and sparkle, runs up to a
narrow breadth of beach, behind which a cliff rises. Three figures are
on the beach—a group of country or of fisher folk; a man kneeling by
a basket hands up a fish, to be inspected by two girls, who bend
towards him. The inspiration of an ancient master and some
concession to ancient traditions are discernible in the umber and
golden shores of another piece. It is in the ‘River Scene with Cattle’
that Gainsborough is more characteristic; it is there that he delights us
in full measure with that which is his own. The scene is at a ferry
somewhere in the Eastern Counties, where the stream is wide, the
land large and flat, the sky ample, the horizon infinite. At the edge of a
miniature cliff, stands a group of cattle. Below them are figures in
shadow, and from the water, to the right, rise high into the sky the tall
and narrow sails of two fishing-smacks drawn up together. Here the
scene is an everyday place, but Gainsborough has known how to
choose the hour; his selection of objects has been justified by a
fortunate grouping; he has secured a rhythm of line second only to
that which lies at the service of a subtle draughtsman of the figure or
a great Ornamentist; and the hues of silvery blue and golden grey with
which his picture is flooded, are those that gather only on the palette
of a born colourist. When this picture has been adequately seen, and
its calm radiance appreciated, the student has little need to go further
to find what Gainsborough was as a poetical recorder of earth and sky,
and what as a pure painter. But for variety’s sake, and for the sake of
noting how much Gainsborough saw for himself, and how much he
was influenced, too, by the ways in which predecessors as different
from each other as Hobbema and Cuyp had seen the world and
presented it, it is well to look carefully at some of the smaller
landscapes in the other and larger room. There are, perhaps,
especially the ‘Small Landscape,’ with luminous white clouds, remote in
a lofty sky; the ‘Forest Scene,’ and the unfinished sketch, in which
Gainsborough has given to a little group of gypsies and their beasts a
greater dignity than a Fleming could have bestowed on a Flight into
Egypt. There are, of course, larger works not claiming less attention;
and one and all, by their deficiencies as well as by their merits, show
that the greatness or the general attractiveness of Gainsborough as a
landscape painter is due not much to his naturalism—which was
naturalism only in his own day, and is seen to have been almost
idealism in ours. His greatness as a landscape painter consists much
more in his continual endowment of Nature with the grace and magic
of Style.
* * * * *
In Portraiture, the only failing that can be laid to Gainsborough’s
charge—and it may at times be a serious one—is that he was apt to be
less impressed by individuality of character than by the occasion which
his subject presented for the painter’s triumph in brush-work. Facile
observer as he was, and wonderful draughtsman, it was not often that
he braced himself to such an effort of stern realism as was made in
the portrait of ‘Judge Skinner.’ This light of the law, sitting robed—with
the keen, sagacious face perfectly dominant over all the splendour of
attire—was painted (on the canvas of which we are now speaking) for
Christ Church, Oxford, of which in 1742 he had been a student; but
the Grosvenor Gallery contains another, though a less admirable,
presentment of the same person. This, though inferior, comes likewise
from an unimpeachable quarter—it is lent by the Honourable Society of
Lincoln’s Inn. Of portraits of William Pitt, there are several by
Gainsborough; but his best representation of all, of the young man
who governed England, is that which comes, like the second portrait of
Skinner, from Lincoln’s Inn. The natural charm of the model here
accorded with that which was the frequent preoccupation of
Gainsborough’s art, and sincere must have been the painter’s pleasure
in dealing with a face which—like the face of Dickens in his youth, two
generations later—expressed sweetness with firmness, and placidity
with boundlessness of resource. The portrait of ‘David Garrick’ is less
satisfactory as an effort of craftsmanship. The shrewd little lady who
succeeded the great and genial Peg Woffington in Garrick’s love,
declared that it was the ‘best portrait ever painted of her Davy,’ so we
will not attempt to dispute the excellence of the likeness; but the
thought that inspired the composition was comparatively trivial and
commonplace. In a park-like scene, the background somewhat
suggestive of Garrick’s favourite retreat at Hampton, the actor whose
attentions were wont to be divided between the Tragic and the Comic
Muse—as Sir Joshua has expressed so suggestively in his happy
allegory—stands by a pedestal on which is placed the bust of
Shakespeare, and Garrick has his arm round the bust, and almost
familiarly caresses it. More valuable would have been a picture in
which the head of the actor had been more dominant than the dégagé
gesture. The head of Garrick, however, if the story goes truly, was
always a puzzle to Gainsborough. Of Garrick and of Foote—mobile
comedians, baffling beyond all men—he is said to have exclaimed,
when he essayed to paint them, ‘Rot them for a couple of rogues, they
have everybody’s faces but their own.’
Generally, it may be noted, the full-lengths of men—sometimes,
also, the full-lengths of women—are less attractive than the half-
lengths and the busts, though whatever could be done by any artist to
overcome the difficulty of making the full-length interesting, could be
done by Gainsborough, since he was a master of draperies, and
skilled, as a pupil of Gravelot’s should have been, in the secrets of
dignified and gracious carriage. But, to remain for the moment with
the men’s portraits, one’s admiration of the elegance and harmony of
Tenducci’s portrait must be in excess of any feeling that can rightly be
prompted by the ‘Garrick.’ This, again, is the portrait of an artist—
Gainsborough’s sympathies were with artists—and Tenducci is said to
have ‘warbled so divinely.’ And then, to take an instance from the
women’s portraits, and to single out a full-length figure, in which the
face is modelled with exceptional exactness, and is one, too, of
peculiar refinement, take the portrait of Lady Sheffield, with her
aquiline nose and her almond-shaped eyes—even here the importance
of the countenance is a little effaced by the brilliant light on the showy
drapery of the skirt. No one could assert that, for real charm, that
picture—masterly as it is in its own kind—is equal to any one of half a
dozen busts or half-lengths in the same Gallery. But, on the other
hand, the ‘Sir Bate Dudley,’ ‘skilled in the nice conduct of a clouded
cane,’ is an instance of Gainsborough’s occasional triumph, even with
the full-length male figure; and the ‘Mrs. Graham,’ at Edinburgh, is one
of the most fascinating full-length portraits of a woman that has been
painted since the days of the Venetians. Furthermore, three more
quite masterly full-length male portraits are in the Grosvenor Gallery
itself: they are first, those that are lent by the Queen, the portrait of
Colonel St. Leger, the portrait of ‘Fischer’ the musician, and last, the
familiar ‘Blue Boy,’ a work directed possibly at the theories of Sir
Joshua and inspired by the practice of Van Dyck.
As one looks over the subjects of Gainsborough’s portraits, one
understands in part how it was that, comparing them with Sir
Joshua’s, or perhaps even with Romney’s, so few of them were
engraved. Romney was, above all things, seductive: he saw Lady
Hamilton—or when not Lady Hamilton, then some one who was almost
equally pretty—in everything, and the public liked what he saw. Sir
Joshua was a courtier, careful to be on the best of terms with the great
world. Gainsborough courted nobody, and the world talked much less
about him. Though, after the lapse of years, he succeeded in getting a
hundred guineas for a full-length picture, and moved, without
imprudence, from the cottage at Ipswich, rented at six pounds, first to
the Circus at Bath, and then to the west wing of Schomberg House,
Pall Mall, he was never really in his own time Sir Joshua’s rival in the
public favour. And much of his best work in Portraiture—over and
above that work in landscape which confessedly engaged his choice—
was devoted to the record of people of the artistic rather than the
fashionable world; people of professions the members of which were
not in those days motioned to the velvet of the social sward.
We have already spoken of more than one instance—and ‘Giardini,’
the fiddler, is another—of such a natural selection which governs
Gainsborough’s art. It is as characteristic of him in portraiture as it is
of Watteau in genre pieces and gallant pastorals. But there is a little
canvas, the portrait of an unknown Mrs. Carr, which holds its own
either against portraits of people from the artistic world or people from
Georgian ‘Society.’ It is curiously natural and refined in expression,
exquisitely suggestive of elegant carriage, though so small a portion of
the figure is seen, and as a piece of flesh-painting, it is unsurpassed
by any of the more famous examples of Gainsborough’s skill. Who was
‘Mrs. Carr’? And had Gainsborough, we may wonder, some further
interest in her than that which is aroused in any qualified observer of
Humanity by the vision of such agreeable beauty? For Gainsborough,
as a rule, painted best the models he knew the most. Executing every
touch with his own hand, and doing his most picturesque with every
model because he was so essentially artistic, he yet must have
undertaken many a portrait of fashionable persons or of enriched
bourgeois, into the dull recesses of whose character he did not care to
penetrate. Where he knew and liked, he painted with delight. He was
so profoundly impressionable: what he enjoyed stirred him: if
somebody played the fiddle particularly well, tears of rapture stood on
Gainsborough’s cheek.
His wife, who was in her youth a rose and brown coloured beauty,
and whose countenance was long afterwards lustrous enough under
the becoming grey of her powdered hair, Gainsborough painted several
times, and always with distinction and conspicuous artistry. His
handling of the subject is best in the portrait numbered 175—a worthy
companion to his own sensitive and high-bred countenance (No. 185).
And his portraits of his daughters—his only children—are at the least
satisfying. One is a group—the two together; another is a half-length
of Mrs. Fischer; another, again, a half-length of the brighter personality
who remained ‘Miss Gainsborough.’ There is some likeness between
the two young women, in the general contour of the head and in the
fulness of the under-lip. ‘Miss Gainsborough,’ with her clear brown
eyes, delicate eyebrows, compact and intelligent forehead, is the
greater beauty; but to Mrs. Fischer there belongs a winning expression
of pathetic reverie. Both are felt to be the true daughters of their
father: the one by her possession of the gaiety and fire of temper
which characterised Gainsborough in his happiest times; the other by
her obvious inheritance of what proved more than her share of
Gainsborough’s keen perception of the sadness of so much of human
fortune. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who was almost wholly intellectual and
‘practical,’ who lived on the outside of things, had nothing of
Gainsborough’s sense of profundity and pathos. And, in so far as he
had nothing of this, he was, in the essentials of character, the less of
an artist. For Goethe said—and when he said it he was uttering one of
the deepest of his truths—‘To be artistic is to be serious.’
(The Standard, 1st and 6th January 1885.)
COTMAN
It remained for the Norwich Art Circle to hold, for the first time, an
exhibition of the drawings of an artist who was nothing less than a
great master in water-colour, but whose place in the ranks of Art
was for many a year, by the general public, not so much contested
as ignored. Cotman was born a few years after Turner. Possessed of
a sensibility as keen, but of less tremendous vitality, he died a few
years before him. Turner was amongst Cotman’s friends; not a
‘chum,’ perhaps, but an advocate, strenuous and judicious—and
strenuous and judicious advocacy may claim to be called friendship.
Had it not been for Turner, it is unlikely that the less-known artist
would have received that post at King’s College which afforded him
comfort, though not affluence, in the last years of his life. Like
Dewint, Cotman taught drawing. But in London his connection was
less influential than that of Dewint, whose usual fee of a guinea an
hour was no doubt never reached by the draughtsman from
Norwich. The appointment of drawing-master at King’s College was
therefore very serviceable: the more so that Cotman’s original work,
though it was produced with the enthusiasm and the untiring
enjoyment, and the sweat of the brow besides, which in any art are
the real artist’s equivalents or substitutes for mechanical diligence—
Cotman’s original work, I say (like a little of Mozart’s best music),
was produced ‘for himself and two friends.’ Even the connoisseur, as
a rule, held back. The public? But can you for an instant expect the
public to understand work which, frankly, makes no bid for its
sympathies, which is never furnished ‘according to sample,’ which is
bound to be itself and wholly fresh, and is content to be excellent?
An intelligent criticism might perhaps have drummed into the big
public, not the real sense, but at all events some tacit acceptance, of
Cotman’s peculiar merit. But where was the intelligent criticism of
1820 and 1830? There was little critical writing then—at all events in
the papers—that was either an influence or an art.
John Sell Cotman was born at Norwich on the 16th of May 1782.
His father was a well-to-do haberdasher, established at that time in
Cockey Lane, but afterwards, when able to retire from business,
living in a villa at Thorpe, with a garden that looked on the river.
Cotman himself drew the garden—and idealised it—in the last year
of his life. His father survived him; dying very old—at eighty-four.
Cotman died at sixty.
Whatever troubles there had been on the subject of Cotman’s
trade or profession, they were got over by the simple process of his
going his own way, and of his father’s forgiving him. The boy was
educated at the grammar school, and at sixteen years old, after
much discussion about his future—after the interposition of Opie,
with the not very measured remark that the boy ‘had far better black
shoes than be an artist’—young Cotman chose the less desirable of
these unhappy alternatives, and, that he might be an artist,
journeyed to London. A young man at that period, and especially a
young man who was wishing to be a landscape painter, had little
opportunity of artistic training, unless indeed it might be that best
kind of training which consists in familiarity with people of mind, and
with the works of art that bygone genius has produced, and with
those natural scenes which, like the voice or the face of your friend,
stimulate and enrich and endow with a new experience. Cotman in
these things was happy. He was trained by the world, and by those
lessons in noble by-past Art which he was so well fitted to receive.
His own true taste, and the faculty of real development—which some
of us call, like Wordsworth, ‘a leading from above: a something
given’—made him independent of academic influence; and in his
case no one undertook the academic task, and made the too-
confident promise to turn into fine gold what is brass at the
beginning, and must be brass to the end. Cotman was fine gold. He
was, that is to say, an artist born, not manufactured.
At the hospitable house of Dr. Munro, in the Adelphi Terrace, the
young man fell into association with a group of painters, most of
whom were his seniors. At eighteen years old he exhibited six
drawings at the Royal Academy, and while he was still extremely
young, he presided over a little society—a sketching club, one may
call it—of which Varley and Dr. Munro were members. At very
moderate prices his drawings seem to have found a sale, and he
began to make excursions into remote parts of the country—into
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—besides visiting his family at Norwich. It
was either at Norwich or Yarmouth, in the first years of the century,
that he made the acquaintance of Dawson Turner, the antiquary.
That acquaintance became a friendship, and, to use the phrase of
Charles Lamb in regard to such matters, ‘a friendship that answered.’
Dawson Turner was at once, and for many a year afterwards, a help
to Cotman. And as a serious student—not only a rich dilettante—he
knew that he gained as much as Cotman from their association. ‘We
value him greatly,’ Dawson Turner wrote to Cotman’s father, very
long after their first introduction, and when it was wanted to arouse
the father to an understanding of Cotman’s position, and of his
depressed state.
In November 1805 we find Cotman established in Charlotte
Street, Portland Place, writing to Dawson Turner that he had been in
Yorkshire and Durham all the autumn, ‘making many close copies of
the fickle Dame Nature—copies,’ writes Cotman, not very elegantly,
‘consequently valuable on that account.’ A hope of settling in
Norwich—of working, and founding a drawing-class there—was now
growing upon him, and in 1806 it was accomplished. A young
bachelor of four-and-twenty—personally a little extravagant, but
taking his art very seriously—he possessed himself of an excellent
house in Luckett’s Court, Wymer Street. I saw the house this
summer. A dignified house, with gables of the Seventeenth Century,
and much of the interior woodwork seemingly of the early
Eighteenth. For six years Cotman lived there. There, was wrought
almost all the best of his earlier art: Mr. J. J. Colman’s ‘St. Luke’s
Chapel’; Mr. Reeve’s ‘Twickenham’ (from a yet earlier sketch); the
same collector’s ‘Mousehold Heath’; my own ewe lamb, ‘Bishopgate
Bridge’; and a mass of work besides—much of which,
unquestionably, has been mislaid, neglected, ruined, forgotten.
The exhibition held at Norwich—to which I began by referring—
gave us an excellent opportunity of really studying this rarer and
earlier art. I am not thinking of the insignificant fact that there was
to be seen there a puerile yet rather clever performance which dates
from Cotman’s twelfth year; but to the assemblage of work of the
early time when he was really an artist—from 1800, say, to 1812.
What was the character of his labour then? With whom did he
sympathise? Whom did he at all resemble? The influence of Turner
and of Girtin is to be detected in some of the work of this period—in
the noble architectural work, especially—and it is not in the slightest
degree unlikely that, in his turn, Cotman exercised some influence
over Turner; at a much later time I mean, when everyday sobriety
sufficed for neither of them, and when Cotman, surely quite as much
as Turner, led the way to revelries of colour. Between Cotman and
Girtin there could be no such reciprocity of influence, for Girtin died,
an accomplished master of water-colour, though less than thirty
years old, in 1802, and Cotman was then but twenty.
Mr. Colman’s large and solid and sober drawing of ‘Durham’ (it
has these qualities, and yet is, somehow, without charm) reminds
me of an early Girtin; while a Girtin of the finer sort, just as simple,
just as straightforward, yet with something of the later magic of the
hand, is recalled by Mr. Reeve’s ‘Bridge over the Greta.’ A quiet
realism; a sense of the picturesque, entertained but yet subdued; a
composition, ordered, yet not seemingly artificial; a breadth that was
never thereafter for a moment departed from—these are, perhaps,
the characteristics of the mature and noble drawings of the earlier
period, such as ‘St. Luke’s Chapel,’ ‘Bishopgate Bridge,’ and
‘Mousehold Heath.’ Wherever there is opportunity for it—as, in my
‘Bishopgate Bridge,’ in the yew-tree to the left and the slope of the
bank to the river—there comes in Cotman’s sense of grace, his
appreciation of style and of dignity, his avoidance of mere
topography; but it is in Mr. Reeve’s ‘Twickenham’—thanks to the
occasion of which the scene itself is lavish—that that sense of grace
dominates, and the stately trees throw their shadows over the lawn
by the water.
In 1812, Cotman removed to South Town, Yarmouth; Dawson
Turner being, presumably, at the bottom of the change. The
painter’s association with the interesting antiquary became more and
more intimate. Purely architectural, or, as one might say,
monumental, draughtsmanship was at this time a good deal
occupying him. He was issuing at the moment the first part of the
Antiquities of Norfolk. In the year 1817, he paid, on the advice of
Dawson Turner, a first visit to Normandy. He went there again in
1819 and 1820; and, two years after the third visit, his Architectural
Antiquities of Normandy saw the light. It was not until 1838 that he
produced the book which best represents the characteristics of his
style—the book in which, fettered by no established task, his sense
of elegance, his genius for composition in line and in light and
shade, had free play—I mean, of course, his Liber Studiorum: soft
ground-etchings of unquestioned force and charm. But at Yarmouth
he had much to engage him. His range of subjects increased. There
it was that he acquired the close knowledge of coast ‘effects’ and of
marine architecture which made him, in addition to all his other
capacities, so excellent a painter of the shore and sea.
It was in 1823, I think, that Cotman left Yarmouth: a married
man in early middle age, with five young children. He did it to
establish himself again at Norwich, hoping perhaps to sell his
pictures better there, and expecting again to add to his group of
pupils—he still went regularly and frequently to those who learnt of
him at Yarmouth. This time it was only a house opposite the Bishop’s
Palace—the address, ‘St. Martin’s at Palace’—that sufficed for
Cotman’s needs, or Cotman’s ambitions. But before long, though he
made no change, his mind suffered tortures from the costliness of
his new abode, and the unremunerative character of the adventure.
He went to the Dawson Turners in utter gloom, and then it was that
his excellent friend wrote to him and to his father letters full of tact,
wisdom, and feeling, pointing out to the well-to-do father that
Cotman must really be relieved, and pointing out, to the now
depressed and now exalted genius of a son, that his position, could
he but face it, and retrench a little, was not by any means so bad.
The existence of the letters on this subject allows us entrance into
the intimacy of these housekeeping troubles, and of the troubles of
mind that threatened to be more serious. But we do not get the end
of the story. We can only suppose that Cotman’s father, who was
really on good terms with him, afforded reasonable help, and that
though the house was not moved from with promptitude, the
expenses inside it were curtailed. Cotman rubbed on, somehow, and
in 1834 he received the appointment which I spoke of at the
beginning—that post of drawing-master at King’s College, London,
which he was to retain till his death.
Preparing to quit Norwich, and wishing to put money in his purse
before doing so, he had a sale by auction of many of his effects.
These included nearly twenty of his paintings in oil, and five guineas
was the highest price realised for any one of them. He sold, likewise,
some copies of his printed book: the demand proving by no means
‘active’—they were indeed rather ‘quiet’ than ‘lively’ or ‘firm’—but of
the drawings he wisely kept back all that were still in his possession:
they were destined to be serviceable in his King’s College lessons.
After a brief sojourn in Gerrard Street, Soho—a mere
preparatory time—Hunter Street, Brunswick Square, was the spot
fixed upon by Cotman for his London home. But he went down to
Norwich still, now and then, in the autumn. His son, ‘J. J.,’ already
gifted, and afterwards eccentric, was settled there. Cotman wrote
letters to him, in many moods, now bright and fanciful, now
depressed and forlorn. He was fond of the Thames before the
Thames was popular—witness Mr. Reeve’s early ‘Twickenham,’ and
Mr. Pyke Thompson’s later ‘Twickenham,’ the ‘Golden Twickenham’ of
the Turner house at Penarth—and in one of those letters to the son
‘J. J.,’ there is ‘the log’ that records the adventures of Mr. Cotman’s
‘voyage’ with others of the ship’s company to Windsor, where they
were ‘not victualled from hence’—from London, that is to say—and
so might be expected to put in at Datchet. Then later, the brightness
was all gone, and illness was upon him. ‘It was my duty, it was my
wish, and I threatened to paint for your sake when you were here,
but I could not; I was ill in body, and spiritless.’
5
Again, still later, ‘I am not quite well, but better. I am painting.’
And then he could paint no more. He died, in Hunter Street, in July
1842, and was buried on the 30th of that month, in what is now the
dull suburban cemetery behind St. John’s Wood Chapel, within
sound of the cheers from ‘Lord’s’ and the screech of the Metropolitan
Railway.
5
These letters, some of which belong to Mr.
Reeve, and others to the British Museum, have
been quoted from more amply in my Studies in
English Art.
The beginning of the later period of Cotman’s art dates rather

from the days of his visits to Normandy than from those of his
removal to King’s College. I used to think that it was a good deal by
the composition—by the theme chosen and by the disposition of its
different elements—that we could best affix some approximate date
to the undated work of this delightful master. And, unquestionably,
composition counts; and the tendency as time advanced was
towards a greater elegance in this matter—a more elaborate art, a
franker departure from that Nature which suffers, in Boucher’s word,
the grass to be ‘too green,’ which ‘lacks,’ in Lancret’s answer,
‘harmony and seductiveness.’ But, with a pretty familiar knowledge,
now, of at least a couple of hundred of Cotman’s sketches and
designs—the most accomplished of his work, with its wise and
learned or inspired omissions, is sometimes disparaged as a
‘sketch’—I am inclined to extend the period during which Cotman’s
art was wont to be wrought into studied fineness of line, and I
would appeal, perhaps, chiefly to colour to settle the question as to
the date of this or that drawing, coming from the hand of one who
was a poet at the beginning and a poet at the end. Undoubtedly, in
the best—in the very best—of Cotman’s later work (in Mr. Pyke
Thompson’s ‘Blue Afternoon,’ for instance, and Mr. Bulwer’s ‘Blasting
St. Vincent’s Rock’), there is a greater freedom of poetic expression
than was reached in the earlier work; an even keener sensibility, an
added love of luxury of hue and of forms that have grandeur
sometimes in their restraint, or elegance in their abandonment.
Certain black-and-white studies done in the last autumn of Cotman’s
life—one October and November, when the country around Norwich
lay under flood, and Cotman, visiting his native city, went out to
depict no definite landscape, but ‘the world afloat’—display that
faculty of seizing the spirit of a thing more than its body, which
Youth, in any art, can hardly claim—which comes to men, it may be,
with the refinement and chastening of the years. But the germs of
all this faculty were there from the first. Cotman was indebted for
them to no institution, and to no outward training. The Heavens had
so willed it that his delightful labour—so sterling, so sober, so poetic
—should evade popularity. He was granted his sensibilities that it
should be impossible to vulgarise him. Through good report and evil
report he was an artist only. And so he accomplished his work.
(Magazine of Art, December 1888.)

H. G. HINE
Strangely little notice, considering the artistic importance of the
subject, has been taken of the death of H. G. Hine, the eminent
artist in water-colours, vice-president of the Royal Institute, who
died a fortnight ago, aged eighty-three years. The explanation, I
fear, of the scanty comment his death has evoked, is to be sought in
the fact that the mass of that public which concerns itself with Art at
all, is occupied chiefly with such art as exhibits an easy piquancy of
treatment or an obvious interest of subject. Hine’s did neither; yet
the best-equipped critics have long done justice to the steady
perfection with which he dealt with those themes of serene weather
upon ‘the billows of the Downs,’ which—superlatively though they
were executed by him—he, with a hankering sometimes after other
compositions and other effects, declined to consider his speciality.
Yet a speciality, of course, they were: those visions of turquoise or of
opal sky, and of grey gold or of embrowned gold turf, with the long,
restful sweeps and subtle curves, the luminous shadows, the points
of light, with the shepherd and his flock on the ascending hillside,
with the ancient thorn-tree bent by the winds of many an autumn.
Singularly unlike the work of strange refinement and
unsurpassed subtlety which it was his wont to produce, was Hine
himself, with his sturdy and sailorlike personality. Yet the character
of the man was, in truth, not less admirable than the artistic finesse
of his work. He found his true path somewhat late in life. His genius
came to him almost as tardily, but then, perhaps, almost as
powerfully, as did David Cox’s. He was long past fifty when—with a
charm of composition not less certain than Copley Fielding’s, and
with the genius of a far finer and fuller colourist—he began to do
justice to the Sussex Downs, amid whose generally unconsidered
scenery it had been his excellent fortune to be born.

Ebooks File Waste Containment Facilities Guidance For Construction Quality Assurance and Construction Quality Control of Liner and Cover Systems 2nd Ed Edition Daniel All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebooks File Waste Containment Facilities Guidance For Construction Quality Assurance and Construction Quality Control of Liner and Cover Systems 2nd Ed Edition Daniel All Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebooks File Waste Containment Facilities Guidance For Construction Quality Assurance and Construction Quality Control of Liner and Cover Systems 2nd Ed Edition Daniel All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookname.

Waste containment facilities guidance for

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

Process Plant Construction A Handbook for Quality

Quality Management in Construction Projects 1st Edition

Computer systems validation quality assurance risk

Construction management 4th ed Edition Daniel W Halpin

Software Testing and Quality Assurance Theory and

Software Quality Assurance SOPs for Healthcare

Total quality assurance for the food industries 3rd

Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Hospital

Animal Waste Containment in Lagoons (ASCE Manual of Practice).

Concrete Watertight Structures and Hazardous Liquid Containment, by Robert

Dam Foundation Grouting, Revised and Expanded Edition, by Kenneth D. Weaver

Karl Terzaghi: The Engineer as Artist, by Richard E. Goodman (ASCE Press).

Remediation in Rock Masses, edited by Hilary I. Inyang and Clifford J. Bruell

David E. Daniel, Ph.D., P.E.

Daniel, David E. (David Edwin), 1949–

Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Chapter 1. Introduction to Waste Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2. Manufacturing Quality Assurance (MQA) and Construction

Chapter 3. Compacted Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.8 Placement of Loose Lift of Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Chapter 4. Geomembranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

4.1 Types of Geomembranes and Their Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 5. Geosynthetic Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

5.1 Types and Composition of Geosynthetic Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Chapter 6. Soil in Drainage and Alternative Cover Systems

6.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Chapter 7. Geosynthetic Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

7.3 Geotextiles as Protection Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Chapter 8. Vertical Cutoff Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Chapter 9. Ancillary Materials, Appurtenances,

9.1 Plastic Pipe (Also Known as “Geopipe”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

The important role of construction quality assurance (CQA) and construction

1.2 Waste Generation

Figure 1-1. Municipal Solid-Waste Generation in the United States from

do not include construction demolition debris, incinerator ash, stabilized sludges,

Table 1-1. Statistics for Municipal Solid-Waste Disposal Methods as

Country Landfill Incineration Recycling and Composting

1. It is listed as a hazardous waste (hundreds of wastes are specifically identified

2. It is mixed with or derived from a hazardous waste.

For those waste materials considered nonhazardous, the applicable legislation

(a) Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

(b) Hazardous Waste Landfill

Landfill covers are an integral part of waste containment systems. A level of

1.4 A Generalized Waste Containment System

• Geonet (GN) drains may be considered to replace or augment soil drainage

• Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) barriers may be used to replace or augment

With these alternatives in mind, we illustrate a possible cross section in Figure

Figure 1-4. Solid-Waste Containment System with High Geosynthetic Usage.

1.5 Natural Soil Components

1.5.1 Compacted Clay Liners

1.5.2 Soil Drainage Layers